ADMISSIONSDECISION-MAKINGMODELS

HOW U.S. INSTITUTIONS

OF HIGHER EDUCATION SELECT

UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS

Gretchen W. Rigol

The College Board:Expanding College Opportunity

The College Board is a national nonprofit membership association whose mis-sion is to prepare, inspire, and connect students to college and opportunity.Founded in 1900, the association is composed of more than 4,300 schools, col-leges, universities, and other educational organizations. Each year, the CollegeBoard serves over three million students and their parents, 23,000 high schools,and 3,500 colleges through major programs and services in college admissions,guidance, assessment, financial aid, enrollment, and teaching and learning.Among its best-known programs are the SAT®, the PSAT/NMSQT®, and theAdvanced Placement Program® (AP®). The College Board is committed to theprinciples of excellence and equity, and that commitment is embodied in all ofits programs, services, activities, and concerns.

For further information, visit www.collegeboard.com.

i

Copyright © 2003 by College Entrance Examination Board. All rights reserved. College Board, AdvancedPlacement Program, AP, SAT, and the acorn logo are registered trademarks of the College Entrance ExaminationBoard. PSAT/NMSQT is a registered trademark jointly owned by both the College Entrance Examination Boardand the National Merit Scholarship Corporation. Other products and services mentioned herein may be trade-marks of their respective owners. Visit College Board on the Web: www.collegeboard.com.

ii

Table of Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Admissions decision-making models:

How U.s. Institutions of higher education

select undergraduate students . . . . . . . . .3

Who Should Be Offered Admission? . . . . . . .5

The Individual and the

Institutional Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Formulas and Judgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Supply and Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Elements of an Admissions Model . . . . . . .13

Assembling the “file” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Customizing the academic record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Calculating an academic index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Organizing and training the readers . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Committees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Sorting and branching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Evaluating an Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Factors considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Approaches to evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

Academic evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

Nonacademic evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

Ratings and weightings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

Multiple entryways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

Denials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

iii

Models Commonly Used

to Select a Freshman Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

A. Multiple readers to committee fordecision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

B. Team readings to decision orfurther review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

C. Single reader to decision orfurther review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

D. Reader(s) to computer for decision orfurther review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

E. Computer to committee(s) for decision . . . . . . .42

F. Computer plus reader rating(s) fordecision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

G. Computer to decision or further review . . . . .43

Other Possible Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

Validating Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

Additional Sources of Information

about How Admissions Decisions

Are Made . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

Best Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51

References and Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . .55

Appendix A Institutional Statements

Regarding Admissions

Policies and Institutional

Enrollment Goals . . . . . . . . . .57

Appendix B Summary of Application

Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61

iv

Appendix C Sample Essay (Or personal

statement) Topics . . . . . . . . . . .69

Appendix D Factors that May Be Used

in Making Admissions

Decisions Based on internal

evaluation guidelines . . . . .75

Appendix E What Colleges Tell

Students about what

They Look for . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79

Appendix F Tables from Trends in

College Admission 2000 . . . .83

v

Introduction

This report represents the third phase in the College Board’s AdmissionsModels Project. The first two phases of the project are summarized in twomonographs published by the College Board. Toward a Taxonomy of theAdmissions Decision-Making Process (1999) identifies nine different philosophi-cal approaches to admissions and related selection criteria. Best Practices inAdmissions Decisions (2002) builds on the Taxonomy and outlines variouscomponents of a best practices model for admissions decision-making. Thosedocuments provide the general framework and background for this document.

The purpose of this phase of the project was to examine exactly howinstitutions make admissions decisions. The primary source of information wasexperienced admissions professionals representing a diverse group of public andprivate institutions throughout the United States. Unlike the earlier phases ofthe Admissions Models Project, which brought together invitational confer-ences, this work was conducted primarily through individual interviews, sitevisits, and examining various internal and published materials about the selec-tion process. Information from more than 100 institutions, representing all lev-els of selectivity, forms the basis for this report.

The primary conclusion this report reaches is that there are almost asmany different approaches to selection as there are institutions. The corollary isthat there is no “best practice” that would apply in all situations. It is evidentthat institutions have approached the development of their individual policiesand practices with care and thoughtfulness. At the same time, colleges and uni-versities across the nation are constantly fine-tuning their processes and lookingfor ways to improve and enhance the ways they practice admissions. Althoughthis report is essentially a snapshot of the different ways admissions decisionsare currently made, it is hoped that this document will also stimulate discus-sion about other ways admissions might be conducted in the future. Anotherpossible use for this document is to inform counselors, students and families,and the general public about the various ways colleges and universities selectstudents.

As this report neared completion, the Supreme Court announced thatit would consider the two University of Michigan cases regarding the use ofaffirmative action in both undergraduate and graduate admissions. When thosecases are decided in 2003, all colleges and universities will undoubtedly reex-amine their admissions policies and practices. So while this report might soonbe out of date, it also may be timely in providing information to help institu-tions evaluate and possibly revise their practices.

This report was prepared during the fall of 2002 as part of a sabbaticalproject prior to my retirement from the College Board. I am grateful to theCollege Board for having given me this opportunity to continue work on atopic that has been one of my particular interests throughout my career.

1

Because all research was conducted in a confidential basis, it is notpossible to publicly thank the many individuals who contributed to this report.Suffice it say that this document would not have been possible without thehelp of so many valued colleagues.

After spending considerable time over the past several months readingcollege viewbooks and other material written for prospective applicants, I real-ize what a daunting task students face as they apply to college. But I also foundmyself getting caught up by the uniqueness of so many different institutionsand half wished I might really be filling out those applications and makingplans to spend four years on any number of the wonderful campuses I’ve beenreading about (if I could get in!)

Gretchen W. RigolDecember 2002

2

Admissions Decision-Making Models:How U.S. Institutions of Higher Education Select Undergraduate Students

The vast variety of ways in which colleges and universities actually makeadmissions decisions reflects the rich heterogeneity of higher education in thiscountry. While some institutions have long-established practices that are wellentrenched in their collegiate culture and underlying missions, the general stateof admissions has become increasingly dynamic. Changing demographics,economics, and the political, legal, social, and educational environment of thetimes have prompted many institutions to review and modify their approachesto selecting students. In addition, shifts in traditional admissions conventions(such as the increase in early decision and early action applications) andtechnology e.g., online applications, electronic transcripts, and imaging, havepressured and undoubtedly will continue to pressure institutions to rethinkhow to manage their applications.

3

Who Should Be Offered Admission?

There are a number of ways to approach this question. The first is based ininstitutional mission and generally incorporates one or more of the nine philo-sophical models outlined in the Taxonomy of the Admissions Decision-MakingProcess (1999). Institutions that embrace an entitlement or open access philoso-phy usually have transparent admissions policies. If a student meets certainprescribed requirements (courses, grades, rank, and/or scores), they are admit-ted. These institutions are more likely to be public institutions (communitycolleges and universities) with a strong state mandate to provide educationalopportunities to all students in the region or state. Other institutions havemore narrow institutional goals that seek to identify students with a demon-strated capacity to perform in their specific collegiate setting, to reward exem-plar experiences, to identify students most likely to benefit from the particularcollege’s offerings, and/or to enroll students who will enhance the institutionalcommunity in some way.

Another way to address the question of who should be admitted is bydefining what the institution considers “success.” Most colleges want to admitstudents who will be successful, but does that mean completing the freshmanyear, getting high grades, conducting independent study, participating in class,being a student leader, athlete, musician or performing artist, graduating, get-ting into graduate school, becoming productive members of society, and so on?One of the complexities of doing admissions is that there are generally multipledefinitions of success—some of which are easier to measure than others. Whileclearly the admissions office cannot be responsible for assuring the more long-term measures of success (after all, the four years of college should have someimpact on nurturing students to be successful), admissions decisions shouldtake into account the institution’s desired outcomes for its students.

A slightly different approach to determining who should be admittedis to have a blueprint of the characteristics of the incoming class. At some insti-tutions, this is an annual directive from the president or academic deans,describing enrollment goals, qualifications, and other desired characteristics ofthe new class. Alternatively, faculty provide information, often through anadmissions policy committee, on the characteristics they value in students.

5

The Individual and the Institutional Context

For entitlement or open access institutions, whichever individuals apply andmeet the prescribed criteria ultimately define what the student body becomes.The primary way these institutions can shape their student body is throughrecruitment of an applicant pool that reflects the desired characteristics of aca-demic quality, diversity, or other attributes it desires. (Scholarships and otherincentives are also used to achieve these goals).

Most other institutions attempt to shape a class through its selectiondecisions. Why some students are admitted and others are not is often a func-tion of institutional priorities. Admissions materials provided to students fre-quently cite the characteristics institutions are seeking in their student body asa whole. Typical statements describe the campus environment they seek to cre-ate and the types of students they hope to enroll. Often these statementsemphasize a dual interest in enrolling students who will both benefit from andcontribute to the collegiate community. Most statements also note the value ofenrolling students with a diversity of experiences, talents, viewpoints, andbackgrounds. Excerpts from statements in viewbooks, applications, and othercommunications from ten different institutions are provided as in Appendix A.

College materials further clarify that they do not necessarily seek individ-uals who possess all of these desired characteristics, but rather they are looking fora class of students who, as a group, will reflect this vision. For many institutions,finding the best balance of students with different academic interests, different tal-ents and skills, and different background characteristics is the ultimate aim of theadmissions process. While marketing and financial aid can and do play a role, theclass is crafted in large part through appropriate admissions decisions.

7

Formulas and Judgment

At the most simplistic level, and as often portrayed by the media, there appearsto be two basic approaches to selection: formulas (by the numbers) and judg-ments (also called comprehensive, holistic, or “whole folder” review). The for-mulaic approach generally includes high-school GPA or rank and possibly testscores; the judgmental approach usually implies a review of the applicant’sentire file, including the complete application, essays, recommendations, andother information. In actuality, however, the way admissions decisions aremade is considerably more complex. Institutions that utilize formulas generallyalso review certain files for special consideration, special programs, orscholarships. Institutions that approach admissions from a comprehensive per-spective often also utilize numbers in some way, either as an academic indexand/or by assigning judgmental ratings to an applicant’s various attributes.

9

Supply and Demand

To a certain extent, the sheer number of applicants in relation to the number ofavailable spaces affects how institutions approach admissions. If those two numbersare relatively close, it is possible to sort most students into an admit categorythrough some sort of numeric evaluation of academic credentials or through a sin-gle reading of the file to look for positive qualities that suggest the student mightbe successful. On the other hand, where the numbers of applicants far exceed thenumber of available places, more complex, often multistep, processes that employboth numbers and judgments might be needed. A common misconception is thatsmaller, private institutions are more likely to review the entire file while large, pub-lic institutions are more likely to use formulas. There are all types of institutions(large and small and public and private) that utilize the most complex processesoften involving multiple readings and committees. The only safe generalization thatcan be made is that the process tends to be more complex if the number of appli-cants is considerably higher than the number of available spaces.

Another aspect of supply and demand is the concept of “yield,” whichrefers to the percentage of accepted students who actually enroll.Unfortunately, during the past decade, yield has become a major factor incollege rankings and higher yields are seen as an indicator of an institution’sdesirability. While many institutions explicitly state that a student’s likelihoodof enrolling if admitted plays no role in the selection process, there are otherswho consider the student’s level of interest in the institution as an element inthe process. In addition, some of the procedures that institutions follow (theproliferation of early decision plans and early notification) are often intendedto improve yield, as well as to alleviate some of the pressure on students as theygo through the admissions process.

11

Elements of an Admissions Model

Before describing seven general models that are commonly used to select incom-ing freshman classes, it is helpful to dissect some of the key elements of theprocess from an operational perspective. While some of these elements mightseem like inconsequential details, they shape the way different models are imple-mented and may have some impact on the resulting decisions. In addition, mostof these elements have logistical and efficiency implications, which are meaning-ful in order to process applicants in a timely and efficient manner—no smallconcern given increases in applications (particularly early in the cycle), shrinkinguniversity budgets, and increasing interest in implementing enhancements (suchas adding essays or inviting students to submit additional information) in thedecision-making processes.

Assembling the “file”What colleges collect about an applicant defines what information they can usein making a decision. At the most basic level, this generally includes:

• A basic application with background information about the applicant• High school transcript (or student-reported list of courses taken and grades

received)• Standardized test results (generally SAT® or ACT)

Other information that is frequently collected includes:• Counselor (or school) recommendation• Teacher recommendation(s)• Essay(s) and/or personal statement• List of extracurricular activities, achievements, work experience, etc. (résumé)• Other test scores (such as SAT II: Subject Tests or TOEFL)• Interview reports• Information about the secondary school the applicant attends

Additional information, particularly for specialized programs or certain groupsof applicants, might include:

• Portfolios• Auditions• Financial statements• Health examinations.

Appendix B summarizes the key elements found in a cross section of applica-tions currently in use at public and private universities. Although there is con-siderable similarity, there are a number of unusual questions that reflect someunique or unusual institutional interests. This is also evident in the range ofessay/personal statement questions that many institutions also ask students toprepare. (See Appendix C.)

Increasingly, institutions are interested in understanding as much aspossible about the students’ personal qualities and contextual background

13

information, as well as their traditional academic qualifications. In most cases,this information is imbedded in various sections of the application or revealedthrough recommendations, personal statements, or other supplemental materi-al. Some institutions provide specific guidance to reviewers about where in thefile to seek out evidence of certain traits (e.g., leadership, special talents, com-mitment to community), while others assume that reviewers will identify suchinformation from the application as a whole. Many institutions are also inter-ested in more general character traits, such as maturity, intellectual curiosity,honesty, and motivation—but finding this information usually requires a veryclose reading of the entire file.

There are different ways files are prepared for review. Although thereare a handful of institutions that claim to have developed a paperless applica-tion process, the vast majority assembles paper folders containing all of the stu-dent’s credentials. A few institutions scan the entire file and reviewers do all oftheir work “on screen.” Most, however, pass the paper folder throughout thevarious review stages.

The order of material in the file is random in many cases (as onedirector of admissions reported, “we’re just lucky to get it all together”), whileothers have detailed lists of the order in which the material is to appear in thefile. This latter approach has the advantage of assuring that each reviewerapproaches each applicant from a particular perspective. Common first ele-ments in the file include the actual application, the transcript, or the personalstatement.

Many institutions also prepare electronic or paper summaries of basicbackground information. Some add academic summaries (see below), while afew institutions summarize other information from the file. In some cases, thissummary sheet becomes the primary review document, but in most cases itaccompanies the file throughout the review process. In addition, many institu-tions also produce summary rosters of all applicants (frequently by state, highschool or intended major).

Customizing the academic recordSome institutions translate information from the transcript onto a worksheetor in a database to exclude courses not considered part of their core college-prep requirements. Because there is no uniformity in the way high schoolscalculate a student’s overall grade-point average (GPA), many institutionsrecalculate the GPA. In some cases, the GPAs are “weighted,” with extra pointsbeing given for honors or Advanced Placement (AP®) courses. In other cases,the GPAs are all “unweighted,” with all courses treated equally and no extrapoints given for more challenging courses. Some institutions simply count thenumber of honors, AP, IB, and other advanced-level courses. A few adjust GPAfor select schools known to have particularly stringent grading practices. Andstill others simply reorganize the transcript information so that it’s easy to see

14

coverage by subject and/or trends over the student’s school career. In most cases, clerks or admissions counselors do this work. In a few

cases where institutions receive electronic transcript data (often self-reported),the adjustments or restatements are made electronically.

Although often a labor-intensive process, this customization helpsinstitutions evaluate all applicants on a similar basis. It also has the advantageof making the information easily available for use in other forms, such as in anacademic index and for placement reports for individual applicants, and forgeneral summaries of the preparation of the application pool as a whole.

Calculating an academic indexMany institutions use high school GPA (either directly from the transcript oras recalculated), class rank, and/or test results to compute an academic index.The weighting of the components of the academic index is generally based oninstitutional research about the performance of enrolled students and is oftendescribed in terms of a predicted college GPA. As with everything else used inthe selection process, the elements and weightings used to create an academicindex, and how this index is actually used, reflect institutional priorities.

For institutions that have clear-cut admissions requirements (oftenstate-mandated or based on an “entitlement” philosophy), this index is usuallyused, in combination with information about course work, to make thedecision—particularly admit decisions. (As noted below, there often are moresteps involved in a deny decision.)

For other institutions, the academic index is used as one element in amore complex decision-making process. In some cases, it is used to sort appli-cations into possible decision categories; in other cases, it simply becomes anadditional element in the student’s application.

Organizing and training the readersVirtually all institutions read at least some complete applications. Some read allseveral times, some read most files (generally the middle group defined by anacademic prescreening), while still others read only a relatively small number ofexceptions or candidates for special programs or scholarships.

Readers tend to be professional admissions staff, although in somesituations, other members of the administration, faculty, graduate students,seniors, alumni, and outside readers are used.

There are different approaches to training readers. Some institutionshave required, formal, multiday, training sessions for all readers. Others pairnew readers with experienced staff. In institutions with an early applicationoption, new readers often “read along” with veteran staff to learn the ropesbefore the majority of applications are received. A number of institutions havecomprehensive manuals for readers, outlining exactly what to look for andoften providing information about the previous class as a way of assuring that

15

all readers are using similar standards. Case studies (usually sample applicationsfrom previous years) are often used in training sessions.

The preliminary sorting described below usually defines where the filewill go for a first reading, although there are a few institutions that assign read-ers randomly. If there is more than one reader, the files are generally read inde-pendently, although later readers usually see the work notes and ratings andrecommendations of the first reader. Sometimes teams of readers (generally twoor three individuals) are assigned a group of applications and after independentreading they meet to agree on a final decision. Only a handful of institutionsuse “blind” readings where no reader is aware of other readers’ evaluations.

CommitteesCollege viewbooks frequently inform students about what their AdmissionsCommittees look for in reviewing applications. What exactly is the AdmissionsCommittee? At some institutions, it is a policy board that establishes broad cri-teria, which are then applied independently by the admissions staff or others.At other institutions, the Admissions Committee comprises all admissions staff(and sometimes other administrators, faculty, and even alumni). Files are gen-erally read independently (in fact, I am not aware of a single instance where allfiles are read by all members during committee meetings) and then recommen-dations from those independent readings may go to the Committee. At someinstitutions, decisions are made by a subset (generally two or three members)of the larger Committee.

Sorting and branchingThere are six basic ways institutions organize applications for review. Oftenthese are combined, either sequentially or in a hierarchical order. For example,an institution might first review all applications as they become complete, witha second review done in geographical order. An example of a hierarchicalapproach is an institution that sorts out certain groups of students (such asrecruited athletes, music majors, children of alumni or staff, students with lowacademic indices) for review by senior staff or specialists, while most otherapplicants are reviewed geographically.

• GeographicalFor institutions that apply some sort of judgment in their reviews, one ofthe most common ways that applications are considered is by geographi-cal region. When there are fixed application deadlines (meaning that allapplications are complete and ready for review at the same time), files areoften arranged by high school within the region. This assures that thedecisions for multiple applicants from a school “make sense.” (If there ismore than one applicant from the school, a college may not always admitthose with the highest GPA or the most number of AP courses, but thereneeds to be an internal rationale, based on institutional priorities, for why

16

17

some students are admitted and others are not.) Generally, the lead reader(and often the applicant’s advocate) is an individual who has responsibili-ty for marketing activities in that area. The advantage of this approach isthat the regional representative is most likely to know the school, thecounselor, and perhaps have met the applicant. Directors acknowledgethat there is a potential conflict of interest and that the regional represen-tative might not be as objective as an individual who did not have thesepotential contacts. On balance, however, the advantages of additionalknowledge about an applicant’s local situation are seen to outweigh con-cerns. In some situations, generally in less competitive institutions, thisregional reader can make the final decision if the applicant meets certaininternal guidelines. In other situations, the file moves through a secondand perhaps third reader and sometimes ends in a committee review.

• Major or school within a universityOften institutions have specific and/or additional requirements for certainmajors or for the different schools, such as engineering, nursing, architec-ture, music, art, and business. Sometimes files are read by specialists inthese areas, occasionally supplemented by faculty reports based on specialrequirements, such as art portfolios, music or dance auditions, or inter-views. As with the geographical approach, the lead reader might make thefinal decision based on internal guidelines or the file might go on foradditional reviews. Review by academic area is of particular value insituations where there are limited spaces available, as well as to assure thatspecial requirements are being met in a consistent manner.

• Academic index groupingsA few institutions prescreen applicants based on a calculated academicindex. Students at the top and bottom are sometimes identified for expe-dited decisions, thus leaving more time for the middle group of applicantswho require additional review. At least one institution uses an index tosort students into three categories—probable accepts, marginal admis-sions, and probable rejects. The first group is considered by a primaryadmissions committee, the second group goes to a marginal admissionsreview committee, and the third group goes to a reject committee. Filesmay be referred from committee to committee. An advantage of thisapproach is that each committee is dealing with students with similaracademic credentials, thus enhancing consistent decisions.

• Special categoriesAt some institutions, certain applications are identified for reading by spe-cialists (occasionally a senior staff member). This might include recruitedathletes, underrepresented minorities, students with alumni connections,students with special health situations, and other background characteris-tics. While this special processing can be the first stage in the process, itoften occurs as a second or final reading of the file.

• In the order in which it was receivedColleges that utilize a rolling admissions cycle usually process applicationsas they become complete. While this is necessary to provide students withdecisions on a timely basis, it requires constant monitoring and finetuning to assure consistent application of decision standards and thatenrollment goals are met.

• Alphabetical Some colleges alphabetically assign responsibility for handling applica-tions to different staff members. The primary advantage of this approachis that it is easy to know who is handling which application (no trivialmatter with the large numbers that many institutions deal with.)

As noted above, many of these approaches are applied at different stages in theprocess. For example, the first reader might be the individual responsible forthe geographical area where the applicant resides and/or attends school and thesecond reader might be a specialist in an academic discipline, the personresponsible for minority recruitment, or a liaison with the athletic department.At another institution, the first reader might be assigned randomly, with thesecond reader being the regional representative.

18

Evaluating an Application

This is the heart of the matter. At one level, institutions might evaluate sepa-rately the major components of the actual application (basic application infor-mation, essay, transcript, recommendations) and then combine those separateratings into an overall score on which the decision is based, although relativelyfew actually approach evaluation in this manner. Equally rare is an overallreview of the entire file without breaking out any of its component strengths orweaknesses. The most common approach for institutions that read files is toevaluate certain key factors, but also for each reader to assign an overall recom-mendation.

Factors consideredAlthough it would be very difficult to develop a comprehensive list of all of thedifferent factors every college and university uses to evaluate applications forevery discipline, there are some common groupings of factors that manyinstitutions currently use. Appendix D provides a list of factors that are com-monly used by at least some institutions. It was derived from studying internalevaluation guidelines and other documentation about institutional admissionspractices. More than 100 different factors were identified in the followingcategories:

Academic Achievement, Quality, and PotentialDirect measuresCaliber of high schoolEvaluative measures

Nonacademic characteristics and attributesGeographicPersonal backgroundExtracurricular activities, service, and leadershipPersonal attributesExtenuating circumstancesOther

There is overlap among these categories and, as will be seen below, some insti-tutions consider certain factors in different categories. This is particularly truefor communication skills; information obtained from the students’ personalstatements and essays, and teacher and counselor recommendations. For exam-ple, for some institutions, communication skills (often as evidenced throughthe essay and interview) are considered a component in the academic rating. Atother institutions, communications might be rated separately, while at stillother institutions, the essay might be seen as a component of a personal ornonacademic rating.

Although the categories used in Appendix D do not use the term“personal qualities,” it is apparent that many institutions have been influenced

19

by Willingham and Breland’s, Personal Qualities and College Admissions (1982)and Willingham’s Success in College (1985). (These two books reported on anin-depth study of admissions at nine colleges. The first studied the role of per-sonal qualities (as distinct from academic performance) in admission as well asthe relationship of personal qualities to success in the freshman year. The sec-ond focused on the relationship among preadmissions characteristics of stu-dents, admissions policies, and different measures of success through four yearsof college.) At one level, this influence is seen simply by the widespread use ofvarious personal qualities in the admissions process. Institutions that may haveonce focused primarily on traditional academic measures now take personalqualities into consideration. At another level, the influence of these two booksis reflected in the emphasis on the quality and depth of the student’s experi-ences (productivity and “follow-through.”)

Perhaps more recent is the expressed need to evaluate candidates inlight of the opportunities (or disadvantages) they have encountered. Thus,institutions often explicitly consider the quality of the school and the level ofofferings when reviewing a student’s academic record. Nonacademic achieve-ments are also evaluated in context, and the overall application is viewed inrelation to any unusual or extenuating circumstances. This might include fami-ly responsibilities or health problems (which might have made it difficult forthe student to have participated in extracurricular activities) or the fact thatEnglish is not the student’s first language.

Most institutions have identified the general factors they considerimportant, and the review process evaluates applicants from those perspectives.Some are grouped (e.g., all information about a student’s extracurricularinvolvement or special talents and awards), while others are evaluated factor byfactor. Some institutions might specifically evaluate as many as 20 differentqualities, while others group them in only a handful of major areas. The fol-lowing eight examples illustrate the range of major evaluation categories thatcolleges use.

20

21

Example 1

AcademicPersonal characteristics (leadership and

personal qualities)Suitability for desired major

Example 2

AcademicCommunicationCharacter, leadership, and initiative

Example 3

Exceptional Academic AchievementAcademic PromisePotential to Contribute

Example 4

Academic AchievementAcademic QualitiesNonacademic AchievementPersonal Qualities

Example 5

Quality of CoursesGrades in Core CurriculumTest resultsActivities (inside and outside of school)Essay

Example 6

Academic performanceExtracurricular activitiesTeacher and counselor recommendationsInterviewPersonal InventoryEssays

Example 7

Application and EssayAcademic PerformanceLevel of Challenge of Academic RecordRecommendations and InterviewPersonal QualitiesSpecial Talents

Example 8

Academic AchievementIntellectual CuriosityPotentialCommitmentCommunicationEngagement with OthersOut-of-School ActivitiesInitiative

While most of these factors are relatively straightforward, there are some differ-ences in the way institutions view and assess the quality of the student’s sec-ondary school, interviews, and personal statements and essays.

Secondary School QualityThere are several reasons colleges have developed information about secondaryschools to include in their assessment of an individual applicant. Because of theextreme variation in school offerings, grading patterns, and the general competi-tiveness of the student body, it is difficult to evaluate a transcript without somesort of contextual information. Experienced admissions officers have built upconsiderable knowledge about most of their feeder schools (or schools withinthe geographical regions they primarily work in), but it is impossible for anyoneto know the characteristics of the more than 27,000 high schools in the U.S.For this reason, most schools provide a profile that includes information aboutthe curriculum, honors, AP and other advanced offerings, the proportion of stu-dents going to college, and average ACT and SAT scores. Some colleges havecollected this information and developed school profile reference guides. Othershave gathered some of this information in statistical profiles that actually assigna secondary school “rating” that is utilized in the evaluation process. A few insti-tutions have developed profiles of enrolled students from feeder high schools toprovide additional information about how prior students from a school havefared on campus. While strong students from strong schools generally have anadvantage in the evaluation process, there is increasing interest in attracting andrewarding students who have excelled in poorer schools. Thus, while sometimesstudents receive a “plus factor” for coming from a strong school, others willreceive a similar “plus” if they are from a school that rarely sends students to theinstitution or that has limited resources.

InterviewsSome institutions encourage or even require interviews, either on campus orlocally with alumni, and utilize the interview report as part of the reviewprocess—as an additional way to find out more about the student than what isrevealed on paper. While a laudable objective, there are few training programsfor the staff or alumni who conduct interviews. Some particularly competitiveor specialized programs (e.g., nursing and architecture) require interviews, oftenwith members of the faculty. In some cases an interview is optional and appearsto be used for the purpose of assuring that the student has an opportunity tolearn as much as possible about the institution and as a general measure of stu-dent interest. Recently, a few institutions have begun requesting certain border-line students to come to campus for an interview. Most institutions, however,do not routinely provide individual interviews for applicants, either becausethey simply don’t have sufficient resources or because of a concern that all appli-cants should have the same opportunities to submit information and that many

22

would not be able to make arrangements for a personal interview. Some havealso expressed concern that certain students might “shine” through the inter-view, while others, particularly those from less advantaged backgrounds, mightbe unduly intimidated and ill at ease in a formal interview setting.

Personal Statements and Essays Increasing numbers of colleges and universities are asking students to submitpersonal statements and/or essays as part of their applications. At some institu-tions, particularly the most selective, these writing assignments are required andan integral part of the application. Supplemental essays are also generallyrequired for consideration for honors programs and special academic scholarshipprograms. But an increasing number of institutions, of all levels of selectivity,invite students to submit a personal statement or essay as an optional compo-nent of the application. There are also a number of short answer questions onapplications that require students to write several paragraphs about their experi-ences, aspirations, and other issues.

The personal statement tends to be either open ended or about achoice of topics that asks students to discuss how an individual, work of art,event, or other situation has influenced them. Occasionally this statement asksstudents to discuss how and why they are interested in that particular collegeor their intended field of study. If essay(s) are required, there are often lists oftopics that students may choose from, although some institutions have uniquerequired topic(s) while others invite students to submit an essay on any topicthey wish. A sample of actual personal statement and essay assignments fromselected institutions is provided in Appendix C.

Personal statements and essays serve two primary purposes—as ameasure of the student’s writing ability and to provide readers with informa-tion about the student’s personal background beyond the basic biographicalinformation from the application and the student’s academic and extracurricu-lar credentials. In most cases, the writing assignments are used for both ofthese purposes, but there are some institutions that focus primarily on ele-ments of writing, and others that encourage readers to look beyond thestudent’s writing skills and to seek out personal and contextual informationabout the applicant.

At some institutions, the essay is evaluated holistically, frequently fol-lowing guidelines similar to those used by ETS in grading SAT II: Writing andAP essays, and a single rating (often on a 5 or 6 point scale) about the student’swriting ability is given. Generally this reading is a part of the review of theoverall application, but at least one institution has a separate trained group ofreaders who only evaluate the essays. In other situations, readers evaluate theessay on topics such as content, style, and originality.

Admissions officers generally believe that writing is an essential com-ponent of the application, despite the fact that some express concern about not

23

knowing if the student received substantial assistance in preparing the essay.One director noted that readers understand that they cannot be 100 percentcertain that the applicant wrote a superb essay, but they can be quite sure thatthe applicant was responsible for a mediocre one. And most note that the essayand personal statement need to “fit” the other information they have about anapplicant and that a bogus essay is likely to “jolt.” As a way to further under-stand how an essay was written, at least one institution asks students todescribe the process they used in preparing their essays, including whose advicethey sought and whether suggestions were incorporated. Many institutions alsoask students to sign a statement indicating that the essay submitted representstheir own work.

Approaches to evaluationFor the sake of organization, the discussion that follows is divided into twomajor categories: academic and nonacademic evaluations. Although institutionshave unique evaluation guidelines, these can be grouped into several commonapproaches. More than one approach can be used by a single institution fordifferent groups of applicants. For example, if a decision is not clear-cut in aformulaic academic evaluation, a second type of evaluation might beemployed. In other cases, two approaches are routinely used, often with a moreformulaic review of the academic credentials and a judgmental approach forpersonal qualities. But even academic review often requires some level of judg-ment and the personal review can be somewhat formulaic.

Academic evaluationVirtually all institutions utilize some measure of academic preparation. As indi-cated below, some stipulate a minimum threshold, while others seek out grada-tions and/or separate out various elements of the applicant’s academicachievement and potential. Outlined below are some common approaches thatare utilized. For the sake of illustration, these examples include specific criteria(number of courses, grades, or test scores), but the actual numbers used by dif-ferent institutions vary considerably.

24

Example 1

Graduation from an accredited high school or taken at least 14 courses in certain academic subjects

Cumulative GPA of at least 2.5Combined SAT scores of at least 910 (or 19 on the ACT)

if GPA between 2.0 and 2.49

Example 2

Successfully completed state-mandated core course requirementsMinimum high school GPA of at least 2.8Rank in class: top 40%

Example 3

Completion of college-preparatory course requirements of the applicant’s homestate.

Admissions Index of 90 or above (represented by the shaded section of the chart) based on a two-way matrix of ACT/SAT scores and GPA.

Admissions Index ChartTEST SCORES GPA

ACT SAT 4.0 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.0

36 1600 142 140 139 137 135 133 132 130 128 126 124 123 121 119 117 116 114 112 110 108 107

35 1580 140 138 137 135 133 131 130 128 126 124 122 121 119 117 115 114 112 110 108 106 105

34 1530 138 136 135 133 131 129 128 126 124 122 120 119 117 115 113 112 110 108 106 104 103

33 1460 136 134 133 131 129 127 126 124 122 120 118 117 115 113 111 110 108 106 104 102 101

32 1410 134 132 131 129 127 125 124 122 120 118 116 115 113 111 109 108 106 104 102 100 99

31 1360 133 131 130 128 125 124 123 121 119 117 115 114 112 110 108 107 105 103 101 99 98

30 1320 131 129 128 126 124 122 121 119 117 115 113 112 110 108 106 105 103 101 99 97 96

29 1280 129 127 126 124 122 120 119 117 115 113 111 110 108 106 104 103 101 99 97 95 94

28 1240 127 125 124 122 120 118 117 115 113 111 109 108 106 104 102 101 99 97 95 93 92

27 1210 126 124 123 121 119 117 116 114 112 110 108 107 105 103 101 100 98 96 94 92 91

26 1170 124 122 121 119 117 115 114 112 110 108 106 105 103 101 99 98 96 94 92 90 89

25 1140 122 120 119 117 115 113 112 110 108 106 104 103 101 99 97 96 94 92 90 88 87

24 1100 120 118 117 115 113 111 110 108 106 104 102 101 99 97 95 94 92 90 88 86 85

23 1060 118 116 115 113 111 109 108 106 104 102 100 99 97 95 93 92 90 88 86 84 83

22 1030 117 115 114 112 110 108 107 105 103 101 99 98 96 94 92 91 89 87 85 83 82

21 990 115 113 112 110 108 106 105 103 101 99 97 96 94 92 90 89 87 85 83 81 80

20 950 113 111 110 108 106 104 103 101 99 97 95 94 92 90 88 87 85 83 81 79 78

19 910 111 109 108 106 104 102 101 99 97 95 93 92 90 88 86 85 83 81 79 77 76

18 860 109 107 106 104 102 100 99 97 95 93 91 90 88 86 84 83 81 79 77 75 74

17 820 108 106 105 103 101 99 98 96 94 92 90 89 87 85 83 82 80 78 76 74 73

16 770 106 104 103 101 99 97 96 94 92 90 88 87 85 83 81 80 79 76 74 72 71

15 720 104 102 101 99 97 95 94 92 90 88 86 85 83 81 79 78 76 74 72 70 69

25

Example 4

Academic Evaluation based on qualitative review of transcript, for a maximum of35 points (which will subsequently be combined with a review of other criteria).

Cumulative GPA in Core subjects (recalculated)3.85–4.00 10 points3.70–3.84 93.55–3.69 83.40–3.54 73.25–3.39 63.10–3.24 52.95–3.09 42.80–2.94 32.65–2.79 22.50–2.64 1Below 2.50 0

Curriculum QualityExceptional (with at least 5 or more AP courses) 7 pointsStrong (with several honors or AP courses) 5Above average (exceeds core minimums) 3Average college-prep curriculum 2Below average (minimal core completed) 1Poor (deficiencies in core requirements) 0

Course Load5 or more core courses each year 5 points4.75 to 4.99 courses each year 34.50 to 4.74 courses each year 24.00 to 4.49 courses each year 1fewer than 4.00 courses each year 0

Senior Year CoursesStrong 3 pointsAverage 1Weak 0

SAT Scores1400–1600 5 points1200–1390 41000–1190 3900–990 2700–890 1690 of below 0

26

Scholastic Awards and AchievementsExceptional (numerous recognitions) 5 pointsAbove average (several recognitions) 3Moderate (in at least one area) 2None identified 0

Example 5

This two-part Academic Evaluation will be combined with ratings for nonaca-demic achievement and personal qualities. Each is evaluated on a 1–5 pointscale. Although the first grid below appears relatively clear-cut, judgment isrequired to determine the ratings, particularly if an applicant’s record falls inseveral categories.

Classroom Performance Test Scores Strength of Course Work

Class Class SAT II: No. of ProgramAcademic Rank Rank Subjects Academic Rigor (in Achievement (0–50% to (51–100% SAT I (Sum of Semesters relation to Rating GPA 4-yr coll.) To 4-yr coll.) (V + M) highest 3) 10–12 grade what’s available)

5 3.9+ Top 2% Top 10% 1500 + 2100+ 32+ Most demanding

4 3.8 3–5% 10–20% 1400–1490 1950–2090 30–31 Very demanding

3 3.7 5–10% 20–30% 1300–1390 1800–1940 27–29 Demanding

2 3.5–3.6 10–25% 30–50% 1200–1290 1600–1790 24–26 Average

1 Below 3.5 Bottom 75% Bottom 50% Below 1200 Below 1600 Below 24 Weak

AcademicQualitiesRating

5 Extremely impressive and clearly demonstrated intellectual qualities.

4 Strong intellectual activity. Much evidence that candidate is fully engaged in learning.

3 Shows some intellectual depth, initiative, and curiosity.

2 Demonstrates routine academic interest and activity.

1 Little evidence of seeking intellectual challenges, either inside or outside the classroom.

Example 6

The following basic academic evaluation is used to sort students into broadcategories. Further evaluations of other academic and personal criteria areapplied on a matrix in determining admissibility.

“A” students will have the following characteristics at the minimum:Recalculated GPA of 3.8Minimum SAT of 1180 with both V and M 540 or higherThree SAT II: Subject Tests totaling 1620 with each score 540 or higher10 semesters beyond core high school course requirementsMinimum of 8 semesters in both English and college-prep mathematicsAt least 20 semesters in the junior and senior years, with a minimum of

27

6 semesters in the senior year.No D/F grades in 9th to 11th grade.

“B” students will meet the following:Recalculated GPA of 3.6Minimum SAT of 1100 with both V and M at least 530Three SAT II: Subject Tests totaling 1530 with each score 510 or higher8 semesters beyond the core high school course requirementsMinimum of 8 semesters in both English and college-prep mathematicsAt least 18 semesters in the junior and senior years, with a minimum of

6 semesters in the senior year.No D/F grades in 9th to 11th grade.

“C” students will meet the following:Recalculated GPA of 3.4Minimum SAT of 1010 with both V and M at least 460Three SAT II: Subject Tests totaling 1380 with each score 460 or higher8 semesters beyond the core high school course requirementsMinimum of 8 semesters in English and 6 semesters of college-prep

mathematicsAt least 16 semesters in the junior and senior years, with a minimum of

6 semesters in the senior year.A maximum of one D/F grade in 9th to 11th grade.

“D” students will meet the following:Recalculated GPA of 3.2Minimum SAT of 920 with both V and M at least 460Two SAT II: Subject Tests with scores of 460 or higherMinimum of 8 semesters in English and 6 semesters of college-prep

mathematicsAt least 14 semesters in the junior and senior yearsA maximum of two D/F grade in 9th to 11th grade.

Example 7

Another set of guidelines for evaluating academic achievement is somewhat lessquantitative in appearance and it includes a review of the applicant’s essays andrecommendations, in addition to the transcript and test results. A 9-point scaleis used, although no guidelines are provided for the lowest ratings.

8 or 9• Flawless academic record in demanding curriculum • Numerous AP/IB/honors classes, if available• Top of class (top 10% in most competitive schools; top 1–4% in less

competitive schools

28

• Mostly A grades• Superior writing ability• Superior/outstanding recommendations

6 or 7• Excellent academic record in demanding curriculum (4–5 solids with

several advanced classes, if available)• Top 25% in most competitive schools; top 10% in less competitive schools)• A’s and B’s• Excellent writing ability• Very strong recommendations

5• Top 35–40% in most competitive schools; 15–20% in competitive, and

upper 10% in average school environment• Solid academic load (4 solids with some APs and honors, if available)• Very good writing ability• Good recommendations (hardworking, consistent)

3 or 4• Top 50% in most competitive schools; 25% in competitive, and upper

20% in average environment• Fair academic load (usually 4 solids each year)• Competent writing ability• Fair to good recommendations• Some weakness apparent in application

Example 8

This academic evaluation looks separately at course selection, recommenda-tions, essay, reader reactions, and an overall academic rating. (An additionalcategory of school quality is also considered.)

Quality of Course Selection(High school curriculum availability, restrictions, or limitations must betaken into consideration.)1. Few academic courses and weak level of course work. Often deficient in

English or math. 2. Taken prerequisites, but little beyond the minimum. Weaker curriculum

given availability at high school or average curriculum with weak senioryear (usually only 16 or 17 units).

3. Taken more than the prerequisites and some honors or AP courses. Solidpreparation. At least 4 academic units for the senior year unless unusualcircumstances exist. (Note: A student who has taken all available college-prep courses should receive no less than this rating.) (usually 18–20 units)

29

4. Has taken predominantly advanced courses, usually 3 or more AP/IBcourses and advanced study in foreign languages, sciences, and/ormathematics (usually 20–22 units).

5. Typically 5 or more AP or IB courses. At least 4 years of the same foreignlanguage (unless not offered). Balanced courseload, having pursued extrastudy in all academic disciplines. Went beyond what high school offered bygoing to summer school, taking courses at a college during the school yearor independent study work (usually more than 22 units).

Recommendations and Evaluation(of academic performance and ability) (Don’t go only by ratings on theform. Be sure your rating reflects both recommendations. Note discrepan-cies. Look for specific examples of intellectual curiosity elsewhere in thefile. Don’t penalize student for a poorly written evaluation lacking detail.)1. Not recommended by school. Mismatched.2. Hardworker, but questionable ability. Ability, but an underachiever with

promise–a late bloomer. A lukewarm recommendation.3. Solid student, hard worker, no particular positives or negatives noted.

Average student in the applicant pool.4. Enthusiastically recommended. Academically motivated student. Taken the

better courses offered by school and has performed well. Seeks academicchallenges outside of school setting. Intellectually curious. Respondspositively to a challenge.

5. “One of our very best this year or in an exceptional group of seniors” kindof comment from a superior school. Also, indications of real intellectualpromise–“a keen and curious” mind. “Excited about learning andchallenges his/her instructors.”

Essay(The essay should be judged on mechanics, style, and content. Your rat-ing for this category should reflect the writer’s ability to organize his/herthoughts in relation to the topic answered. Short answer responses fromelsewhere in the application may also be considered in this rating.)1. Short. No effort, Inarticulate, Poor grammar.2. Superficial. Token effort. May be grammatically sound, but has no

substance. No insight into the writer.3. Typical essay. Effort and sincerity evident. No masterpiece, but obvious

thought put into essay. While it may not be unique or special, writercomes across as interesting.

4. Very-well written. Flows. Person may write about the typical topics but doesit better than most. Does something a little different or creative and does itwell. Insightful. Essay enables you to get to know the applicant better.

5. Extremely well written. Creative. Original. Memorable. You want toshare it with the rest of the staff.

30

Nonacademic evaluationMost institutions assign some sort of ratings to their evaluation of a student’snonacademic experience and accomplishments and other background characteris-tics. This part of the evaluation tends to be more judgmental than the academicevaluation. Outlined below are some examples of different ways collegesapproach this review. As with the academic evaluation, the nonacademic evalua-tions range from a single rating to complex evaluations on numerous dimensions.

Example 1

This institution assigns a single rating for personal characteristics, with the fol-lowing general guidelines.

A. Demonstrated national/regional-caliber talent or leadership in manyareas.

B. State-level achievement or talent in at least one areaC. Demonstrated school talent or leadership in many substantial areasD. School talent or leadership in one substantial areaE. No demonstrated talent or leadership

Example 2

The following example evaluates students on their nonacademic achievementsand personal qualities.

NonacademicAchievementRating Depth of Achievement Breadth of Achievement

5 National or international level achievement 4 or more areas of significant achievement

4 State or regional achievement 3 areas

3 Significant at the area level 2 areas

2 Significant at the school level 1 area

1 No significant achievement No significant involvemen

PersonalQualitiesRating Description

5 Inspirational. Leaves a strong positive impression. To be used only in special circumstances.

4 Clear evidence of excellent interpersonal qualities. An example in the school context.

3 Relates well to others. Well adjusted and a “team player.”

2 Neither clearly positive nor negative qualities.

1 Evidence of negative personal or interpersonal qualities.

31

Example 3

This is another set of guidelines for evaluating similar components of anonacademic evaluation.

Extracurricular Activities1. Little or no involvement in school, community, etc. Apathetic.2. Some involvement. Perhaps in a few clubs or athletic teams with no real

commitment to the activity or limited leadership roles. (May lack persistencethrough the years.) “Member of” is the extent of most involvement.

3. Average for the applicant pool. Has been involved in several clubs,participated in a few sports, some volunteer work, perhaps part-time job, ormay have expertise in a particular club or activity with leadership positions.

4. Very active in diverse areas, plays quite a few sports or significantvolunteer activities and perhaps a class officer. Significant leadershiprecognition. Committed. Special talents standout. May have consistentcommitment to a part-time job.

5. Exception. A real leader. Recognition in high school for talents oraccomplishments. Would definitely make an impact on campus. Majorleadership roles. Involved actively in organizations, sports, etc. Devotesextraordinary amounts of time/effort to activities.

Note: Take into consideration whether or not the student spends asignificant amount of time at a part-time job, since activities might belimited by this commitment.

Personal Qualities/Character1. Has added nothing to the school environment; trouble working with

others; major concern about character of student.2. No problems, but does not stand out in any way or some concern about

the moral character of the student. “Will blossom in college environment”sort of comment can earn a plus.

3. A valuable part of a specific activity at school or in the community. Maybe a student who has faced adversity and has overcome it or becomestronger. This student may be in a very special circumstance.

4. A real contributor, joy to have at the school. Leadership ability.Responsible. Ready to do jobs nobody else will do. Has shown the ability tomeet obligations.

5. Unique. A leader. Charisma. Will make an impact on campus. Fullycommitted to any enterprise undertaken. Consistently exceeds expectations.One of the best ever. A rare breed. Compassionate. Relates well to others.Utmost respect of and for others (peers, teachers, etc.)

Note: Look for other specific examples of personal strength andleadership in the file. Don’t penalize the student for a poorly writtenrecommendation from a teacher or counselor.

32

Example 4

Rather than assign a numerical or alphabetical rating, some institutionsevaluate each applicant’s personal qualities on a grid on a summary sheet.

Below Average Average Above Average Exceptional

Maturity

Enthusiasm for learning

Tolerance

Leadership potential

Concern for others

Creativity

Determination

Other ___________

Example 5

At some institutions, points are added to the applicant’s academic index forcertain specified other factors. For example:

• Essay (up to 5 points for exceptional writing, judged on the basis ofcontent, style, and originality)

• Personal achievement (up to 5 points, based on evidence of persistence,character and commitment to high ideals, and level of awards. Inaddition, points may be added if there is evidence of barriers overcome,significant employment while maintaining academic excellence, service toschool and community, evidence of having taken advantage ofopportunities, displaying maturity, and evidence of being a self-starterand role model).

• Geography (up to 5 points for coming from an underrepresented school.)• Strength of school (up to 5 points for coming from a highly competitive

school.)• Background characteristics (up to 5 points for first generation going to

college, underrepresented minority, interest in major that attracts theopposite sex, such as males in nursing or females in engineering.)

• Alumni relationships (up to 5 points)

Ratings and weightingsAs is clear from the preceding sections, there are myriad rating schemes used inevaluating applicants. In some cases these are used as a reading guide, with thefinal recommendation based on the overall impression that the reader hasgained about the applicant. In other cases, the ratings are combined to comeup with an overall selection index. Institutions use a variety of methods todevelop or confirm the appropriateness of the way they evaluate applicants.Validity studies and other research are frequently used to help colleges definethe relative importance of an applicant’s credentials. Another common method

33

in determining how to evaluate applicants is by faculty consensus or governingbody action.

The following examples illustrate the range of rating and weightingscales used by different institutions.

Example 1

Academic Index 0–35 pointsSupplemental points from nonacademic ratings 0–25 points Total 0–60 points

Students that receive a total rating over 45 are generally admitted. Studentsbetween 20 and 45 are reviewed by Committee.

Example 2

Two readers assign overall rating of 1 (high) to 5 (low) based on the followingguidelines:

Academic (60% of composite)Communication (20% of composite)Character, leadership, and initiative (20% of composite)If the two readings are within one point, the following actions are taken:

1’s and 2’s are admits3’s are held until end of process; may become admits or waiting list4’s are usually waiting list or deny5’s are denied

Example 3

One reader assigns points on each of the following factors:Grades 1–3Strength of Curriculum 1–3Senior year 1–3Test Scores 1–3Essay 1–3Recommendation 1–3Personal 1–3 Total 7–21

Students with 2 or 3 ratings in the first three categories and a total of at least15 points overall are automatically accepted. All others are reviewed by asecond (or third) reader to determine action.

34

Example 4

Quality of Curriculum (in relation to what school offers) 1–15Grades in core courses 1–15Test scores 1–12Activities, work, and leadership 1–9Essay 1–9Total Index 5–60

Each year (based on previous year’s experience), there are guidelines on whatindex is the accept level. In recent years, applicants with 45–60 are almostalways admitted. Depending on size and quality of applicant pool, studentswith a lower index may be admitted or placed on the waiting list.

Example 5

The following evaluation process is computer generated based primarily onindividual ratings entered by an admissions counselor. These values representthe maximum number of points a student might be awarded for each factor.

Basic Academic Index:Class Rank 10Grade-point Average 45SAT verbal 17SAT math 23Quality of school 5

Bonus points are added for:Targeted States 5Female (in Engineering) 5Minority 5Top 10% 10High Interest in Institution 5

Points are deducted for:Bottom half of class 40

For this institution with rolling admissions, the Index is computed once a weekand rosters in rank order are prepared for the Director of Admission.Depending on the number of applications received and the stage in theprocess, students above a particular score are offered admission, with a middlegroup held over for evaluation in relation to future groups of applications, andthe lowest group denied admission.

35

Example 6

The following unusual five-point scale is used to evaluate students “on themargin” after other reviews have taken place. Each file is read by two readers;the ratings are averaged, and some number of students in the highest categorywill be admitted if space is available.

2 This is the highest rating you can give a student. It indicates that, basedon your review, you feel this student should be offered admission withoutquestion.

1 This is a positive rating, but without as much conviction. If you think itwould be appropriate for this student to be admitted but you wouldn’tspend much effort trying to convince a colleague of this, then this isprobably the rating to use.

0 You may find yourself unsure of a rating or you may feel neutral aboutthis student’s chances for success or fit at the university.

-1 Some students may appear not to be very promising candidates foradmission in comparison with others, but you could see how anotherreader might find merit in the application.

-2 This is the lowest rating given. It means you cannot find indications inthe student’s file that advocate for offering admission to this student. Youwould argue strongly not to admit this student.

Multiple entrywaysWhile most institutions have procedures in place to evaluate multiple charac-teristics of students, some also provide applicants with a variety of ways to gainadmission. In recent years, several states have adopted class rank plans, wherebyall students who have met basic course or other application requirements andwho rank in the top 4, 10, or 20 percent of their high school graduating classesare automatically admitted. Many institutions also have set aside a small per-cent of their entering class for students who may not meet traditional criteriabut who have unique talents or personal situations. The following is a list ofbackground characteristics that might qualify for special consideration.

First generation in collegeGeographic location (such as inner city or rural areas)Socioeconomic statusAcademic endeavors outside the classroomBreadth of experience (military, Peace Corps, returning student)Children of facultyChildren/Sibling of alumniCommunity serviceExtenuating circumstancesLanguage backgroundWork experience

36

Denials Despite the various rating and weighting methods described above, many insti-tutions employ special final reviews for students who have been placed in a“reject” category. Sometimes this entails additional reading(s) to confirm thedecision. In other cases, the file goes to the Director or other senior staffmember to sign off on the decision. Sometimes students are requested to sub-mit additional information (or to come for an interview) and occasionally theyare provided with a course of action (such as successfully completing specifiedcourses at a community college) they can follow to qualify for admission in thefuture.

37

Models Commonly Used to Select a Freshman Class

At the risk of oversimplifying what really happens on college campuses asadmissions officers make decisions about which students will be accepted, thedifferent approaches observed have been grouped into seven major models.These models have been defined by the process through which decisions arereached. Within each model, institutions consider a variety of factors andemploy many different methods to evaluate an applicant’s credentials, experi-ences, and background.

There are several basic elements in most models: Readers, Committees,Computers, and Further Review. As noted earlier, readers are usually membersof the admissions staff, but can also be faculty, other administrators, and others.Committees sometime include the entire admissions staff or are a separate facul-ty committee or a subset of one of these larger committees. Computers play dif-ferent roles in the process, but as used in this section, the Computer stagegenerally refers to some sort of index calculated on academic information(grades, courses, rank, test scores) that are entered directly by clerks or electroni-cally. In some cases, ratings for other factors are also incorporated into theindex. Further review often requires an additional reader, special review by theDean of Admissions or other senior staff, or referral to committee.

A. Multiple Readers to Committee for DecisionThis is the model that is most commonly documented in articles and booksabout the admissions process. It is most often used by private selective institu-tions. Typically, the review begins with at least two independent readers (one ofwhom is usually the individual responsible for the geographical area where theapplicant comes from). Generally, the first reader rates various factors, preparesa written summary highlighting significant information about the applicant,and gives an overall recommendation. This first reading is frequently in greaterdepth and the summaries more detailed than subsequent readings. The secondreading tends to build on the first, either agreeing or disagreeing with the rat-ings of the first and adding written comments with reasons for the recommen-dation. If there is disagreement between the first two readers, a third readermight be called in. All of the reader comments are generally summarized on aseparate review or recommendation sheet or on the front of the folder.

Following the readings, files are prepared for the Committee.Generally, this entails the preparation of a roster with key elements of theapplication summarized. As noted earlier, there are various ways the roster canbe organized, but most of the institutions that utilize this particular decision-making model tend to review files geographically and by school. Usually, allmembers of the committee have a copy of the roster of candidates being con-sidered during that session.

39

At the committee meetings, one member (generally the first reader)presents the applicant to the committee and makes the case for a particulardecision. During the subsequent discussion, the actual file is available for con-sultation and review by members of the committee who had not read theentire file. The committee then votes on the final decision. In addition to“accept” and “deny” categories, most institutions have several in-between cate-gories (leaning toward admit, leaning toward deny, waiting list) so they canrevisit cases at the end of the process to come up with the right numbers need-ed to enroll a class of the correct size. This fine-tuning is often made by theDirector of Admissions, although in some cases the “in between” files arereturned to the Committee for final decision.

B. Team Readings to Decision or Further ReviewSimilar to the model described above, this model differs in that decisionsmight become final after two or three readers have evaluated the file and agreeon the action to be taken. It is the most common model used by both publicand private selective institutions of all sizes. Often, one member of the team(and the final reader) is a senior member of the admissions staff. Although thedescriptor does not mention a committee, the team might be construed as acommittee and indeed usually is comprised of a subset of a larger committee.While the readings and resulting recommendations may occur independently,these teams do occasionally meet, in some cases once a week to discuss unusualcases or simply to “calibrate” to assure that all readers are applying consistentstandards.

At one institution that follows this general model, the first and secondreaders write summaries and provide ratings, and recommendations. If theyagree, the file goes to a senior admissions officer for confirmation.

At several other institutions, the first two readers rate the applicant onnumerous factors. The ratings are totaled and applicants that receive ratingsabove a certain threshold are admitted and those below another threshold aredenied. (If the ratings do not agree by a certain number, a third reader is broughtin.) A small middle group goes to a senior admissions officer for decision.

At still another institution, the first two readers (one of which is thegeographical representative) provide summaries and ratings on the followingscale: an A (definite admit), B (perhaps admit), C (perhaps W/L or deny), orD (Deny). (There are stringent guidelines for each category and only about 40percent of the applicant pool may be assigned the top and bottom two ratings.)Applicants that received double A ratings are admitted without further review.Applicants that receive double D ratings receive a third reading for confirma-tion or further review. After all preliminary readings have been completed, acommittee of the entire admissions staff reviews the middle 60 percent of theapplicant pool (those with B, C, and mixed recommendations). The committeemeets for a full week and reviews and makes recommendations on applications

40

from each geographical region. After that, geographical representatives taketheir remaining files and, following guidelines established by the full commit-tee meeting, make final recommendations. Fine-tuning at the end of theprocess is made by the Director.

C. Single Reader to Decision or Further ReviewThis model is most commonly used by public and private institutions that aremoderately selective (accepting 50 to 90 percent of their applicants). Theassigned reader is usually either the individual with responsibility for that geo-graphic region or a specialist in the academic department to which the studentis applying. Readers have specific guidelines about course requirements, highschool performance (grades and/or rank), test scores, and other factors that arerequired for admission. There are frequently different guidelines for differentprograms within the institution. If the applicant clearly meets all criteria, thereader may admit. Generally, if the applicant does not meet all criteria, the fileis sent with a recommendation to a senior staff member for final decision.

While the emphasis in this model is on meeting specified academicstandards, it can also include other factors. For example, at one institution, thereader evaluates the academic record and also assigns ratings for the essay,school recommendation, and personal qualities. Applicants with a combinednumerical rating above a certain number can be admitted on the first reading.Others go to senior staff for further review and decision.

D. Reader(s) to Computer for Decision or Further ReviewThis model is used by a broad array of institutions with all levels of selectivity,including some very large public institutions, as well as smaller public and pri-vate institutions. It is a perfect example of how admissions can be both formu-laic and judgmental.

One or more readers rate each applicant on a variety of both academicand nonacademic factors. The academic review includes the traditional acade-mic indicators (GPA, class rank and courses taken), but normally also considersnumerous additional factors, such as the strength of the curriculum, whetheror not the student has taken advanced courses if available, the quality of thesenior year, and school quality. Nonacademic ratings cover factors such as thequality of essay and personal statements, leadership, character, and other per-sonal qualities. The ratings may also reflect institutional interests in enrolling aclass with diverse backgrounds and talents who will contribute to the institu-tional community and support its mission. This could include recognizing andrewarding students from underrepresented geographic regions, from rural orinner city schools, low socioeconomic status, those with alumni (or staff ) con-nections, underrepresented minorities, first generation going to college, ath-letes, all in-state students, and so forth. While most attributes are eitherpositive or neutral, some institutions deduct points for certain factors—such

41

as being in the bottom half of the class, taking easy courses if more challengingcourses were available, and a weak senior year (either grades or courses).

Ratings are applied in different ways to determine who will be offeredadmission. In some cases, there are separate academic and nonacademic rat-ings, which are applied in a grid format similar to this example. Students in theHold category are reviewed at the end of the process and decisions are basedprimarily on whether space is available.

Academic Nonacademic Rating

Rating Below 20 20–30 30–40 40–50 50–60 Above 60

1 Deny Deny Deny Deny Hold Hold

2 Deny Deny Hold Hold Admit Admit

3 Deny Hold Hold Admit Admit Admit

4 Hold Hold Admit Admit Admit Admit

5 Admit Admit Admit Admit Admit Admit

In other cases, the academic and nonacademic ratings are combined to create asingle selection index. Sometimes there is a single line that divides the admitsfrom the rejects. Sometimes, applicants above a certain point are admitted;those below another point are denied, and those in the middle are held untilthe end of the process or sent for further review.

E. Computer to Committee(s) for DecisionThis is a somewhat unique model that is used by a moderately selective publicinstitution, but it could be utilized by a variety of types of institutions. The processbegins with a computer screening that calculates an index based on GPA, class rankand number of courses in core subjects, and number of AP courses. The applicantpool is divided into three groups: those who exceed the academic standards and arepresumably qualified for admission, those who meet standards but have a deficien-cy in some area, and those who do not meet standards. Each group goes to a sepa-rate committee: the Main Admissions Committee, a Marginal Review Committee,and a Reject Review Committee. There are at least three members on each com-mittee. The Main Admissions Committee reviews the files of all students in thefirst group and confirms admission (or refers the applicant to the Reject ReviewCommittee if they do not decide to admit) and identifies applicants who might beeligible for special scholarships or the honors program. The Marginal ReviewCommittee deals with the second group and can admit, request additional infor-mation, or refer to the Reject Committee. The Reject Review Committee eitherrejects or refers back to one of the other two committees for possible admission.

F. Computer Plus Reader Rating(s) for DecisionThis model is used primarily by very large competitive institutions and is use-ful in sorting the applicant pool so that students who are most likely to be “inthe running” are given careful review. It begins with a computer generated aca-demic index. In some cases, this index is used as a threshold, above which

42

applicants are then subjected to thorough reader reviews. In other cases, thisindex is combined with reader ratings for a final score, although students withthe lowest academic index are frequently reviewed primarily to be sure thereare no extenuating circumstances that might merit admission.

Except for the first step in the process, this model is very similar to ModelD described above. All students deemed to be potential candidates by the academicindex receive complete readings (generally by at least two readers) and are rankedon a variety of factors. The reader ratings are combined (either by addition or in amatrix fashion as illustrated under Model D) and the decision is usually automatic.

G. Computer to Decision or Further ReviewThis model is frequently used by large institutions of relatively low selectivity orthose with multiple entryways. It is particularly appropriate for public institutionsthat have a mandate to guarantee admission to students who meet specified acade-mic criteria. Processing is frequently aided by having electronic academic tran-scripts supplied directly by the school or as self-reported by students. Otherwise,information is entered into the database by clerks or admissions counselors.

The computer screening might entail a comprehensive review of thecourses taken to assure that core requirements have been met. Usually, an acad-emic index, based on grades and/rank and test scores, is calculated. If above aspecified level, the candidate may be admitted. Although there are many differ-ent possible formulas (some of which have been established by statewide highereducation boards or other authorities), the following examples illustrate someof the approaches that are used.

Example 1

Must meet Freshman Competency Requirements (list of number ofcourses by subject)Must meet one of the following General Aptitude Requirements:• Class Rank–top quarter• Minimum Composite Score–ACT 22 or SAT 1040 (slightly higher for

nonresidents)• GPA–3.0 (calculated only on competency courses)

Example 2

Minimum ACT 22 (SAT 1030) orClass Rank–top 50% orMinimum high school GPA–2.5

Must also have completed college-prep course requirements for the statewhere student comes from.

43

Example 3

Must have taken required core courses

Top half of the class orAdmissions Index of 90 or higher

Admissions Index is a formula based on 2xACT + high school percentilerank.

Example 4

Successful completion of specified college-prep coursesCumulative high school GPA of at least 2.8Minimum SAT 510 verbal and 510 mathRank: Top 40%(Some programs have higher requirements.)

Students who are at the margin are often given an individual review or are sentto a committee for a final decision. Some institutions that utilize this approachmight invite students, at the time of application or later in the process, to sub-mit additional information for an individual review.

44

Other Possible Models

Although not among the models studied, there are several other approachesthat are currently in use by at least some institutions or that have been pro-posed by commentators.

Link to state competency examinations or certificatesAs states develop various ways to certify that students have attained establishedcompetencies for high school graduation, some have proposed that this infor-mation should become the basis (or at least a factor) in admitting students,particularly to state-supported institutions.

Instant or on-site admissionsStudents are invited on campus for an in-depth interview with a senior mem-ber of the admissions staff (and in some cases members of the faculty). Theybring official transcripts and a completed application and may be asked to dis-cuss a required reading or participate in a group seminar as part of the process.A decision can be rendered at the end of the student’s visit.

LotteryThis approach is occasionally suggested by those who question the fairness ofthe judgmental reviews (and some who believe that test scores are overly used inthe current process). After some minimum eligibility threshold is met, places inthe incoming class would be randomly assigned on a lottery basis. Thisapproach was experimented with several decades ago at least one institution, butabandoned when highly qualified applicants were not “selected” over others whohad considerably weaker records from the same school.

Wild cardsThis approach might be used with other models to permit staff or faculty toadmit a limited number of students on whatever basis they wish. This might beused for high-risk students who have impressed a staff member or a studentwith a particular talent but otherwise marginal credentials.

Automated selectionThe college would define, in detail, the characteristics of the incoming class itdesired. A computer algorithm, based on an optimization model, would beapplied against the entire applicant pool. Reviewers could then review the can-didates selected (and not selected) and make final decisions.

There are undoubtedly other approaches that might be used in select-ing a class. At many institutions, there have been significant changes in recentyears in how admissions decisions are made and it seems reasonable to assumethat colleges will continue to modify their approaches to reflect changes in

45

their applicant pools, in institutional goals, and in the environment (legal andotherwise) in which they operate.

In exploring other possible ways to select students, it is useful toexamine how admissions decisions are made in other contexts. Admission tograduate and professional schools have many of the same elements that areused for undergraduate admissions, although faculty involvement is consider-ably greater. Compared to institutions of higher education in other parts of theworld, U.S. colleges and universities employ significantly more complexapproaches. The standard in most international universities is extremely formu-laic, generally based on a single set of examination results. Although manycountries are beginning to explore ways to make higher education more acces-sible to all of their students, most remain focused on enrolling a rather unidi-mensional academic elite class of students. In contrast, U.S. institutions have amuch broader conception of who is entitled to higher education.

46

Validating Outcomes

Although not a focus of this investigation, it should be acknowledged thatresearch and evaluation are an essential part of any admissions decision-makingprocess. There can be many reasons why an institution has adopted a certainapproach; however, it is ultimately valid only if it produces the desired results.The traditional way of evaluating whether or not admissions decisions are cor-rect is through validity studies that examine how well students perform oncampus. These studies can examine virtually all factors considered in admis-sions, not just the more traditional grades and test results. If, for example, aninstitution has decided to place more emphasis on essays or interviews or lead-ership qualities, these factors can be rated and included in validity studies.

Perhaps more important is the need to consider on which outcomesthe process should be evaluated. Predicting freshmen grades is only one possi-ble criterion of whether or not the admissions process is working. If the mis-sion of the institution is to enroll students who have the potential to benefitfrom a college experience, it would be equally important to consider how stu-dents are indeed benefiting from the experience. If contribution to the campuscommunity is an important goal, the evaluation should examine whether ornot students judged to have this attribute, at the time of admissions, have actu-ally contributed in positive ways throughout their college careers. Earlier phasesof this project identified a variety of ways in which colleges define success. Themonograph, Best Practices in Admissions Decisions, provides examples of howdifferent colleges define success—ranging from broad goals (preparing studentsfor the adult world, helping form the whole person) to specific lists of underly-ing competencies they expect of their graduates (is able to generate originalideas and solutions, respects and values individual differences, and functions inan intercultural context). To the extent possible, admissions decisions shouldbe validated on this broader set of criteria.

47

Additional Sources of Informationabout How Admissions Decisions Are Made

Most of the information in this document came from conversations withadmissions professionals and studying internal documents used by institutionsin their evaluation processes. However, there are numerous other sources ofinformation about how colleges select students.

A primary source of information is the collected viewbooks, Web sites,and other published information that colleges provide students. While relative-ly few institutions describe exactly how applications will be reviewed, a numberdo provide statements that outline the factors they evaluate. Appendix E sum-marizes what colleges tell students about what they look for in an application.This list was culled from more than 50 applications, viewbooks, and Web sites.It is reassuring to note that there is considerable overlap between this list andAppendix D that summarizes factors from internal evaluation documents.

Another valuable source of information is the recently released Trendsin College Admission 2000; A Report of a National Survey of UndergraduateAdmission Policies, Practices, and Procedures (2001). This survey was jointlysponsored by ACT, Inc., the Association for Institutional Research (AIR), TheCollege Board, Educational Testing Service (ETS), and National Associationfor College Admission Counseling (NACAC). It is the fourth in a series ofnationwide studies that examined admissions policies and practices. Among thefindings in the latest survey that are relevant to this report are a number ofindicators that institutions are receiving more applications and becoming moreselective, and that there has also been an increase in their academic standards.The implication of these findings is that selection is becoming a more impor-tant element in many admissions offices than ever before and that students,families, and schools will feel increased pressure. The survey also examined theimportance of various factors in admissions decisions. Several tables that sum-marize this information are reproduced in Appendix F. These tables confirmmuch of the information provided throughout this document, such as theoverall importance of traditional academic indicators and increasing impor-tance of essays and in certain personal qualities, such as leadership and com-munity activities.

Over the years, numerous books and articles have been publishedabout the admissions process. Some have been written specifically for studentsand parents, such as Joyce Slayton Mitchell’s Winning the Heart of the CollegeAdmissions Dean, which provides advice about applying to selective colleges ingeneral. Others, such as Jacques Steinberg’s recent book, The Gatekeepers, and anumber of magazine articles, focus on a single highly selective college. Whilethese publications accurately describe a specific admissions model (generallyModel A—multiple readers to committee to decision), they can lead the public

49

to believe this is the way all admissions decisions are made. There is consider-able misinformation in many articles, often rooted in oversimplification andoutdated generalizations.

50

Best Practices

Readers who jump to this page to find out what is the best practice in selectingstudents will be disappointed. As this document has illustrated, there are a vastvariety of ways to make admissions decisions. Each institution has a unique mis-sion and institutional goals and must develop and implement admissions policiesand procedures that are not only consistent with, but that serve to advance thosegoals. The evidence collected in this project reveals that colleges and universitieshave indeed developed methods to evaluate applicants in ways that make sensewithin their particular situations. There are, however, several general conceptsthat undergird all admissions practices and that might be reviewed periodically toassure that practice remains relevant and the best it can possibly be.

Consensus on admissions objectives The broad objectives that each admissions office seeks to implement should beexplicitly affirmed or revised periodically. This might be done in the context ofinstitutional self-study in preparation for accreditation reviews or in the devel-opment of strategic plans, which often precede major capital campaigns, orother major campus-wide projects. Sometimes, admissions objectives are issuedby the trustees or other governing boards. More commonly, faculty commit-tees, deans, and/or the provost or president, are charged with responsibility forproviding annual guidance about admissions objectives. The most useful objec-tives are those that describe the desired characteristics of the incoming class inboth quantitative and qualitative terms.

Consensus on the qualities the institution seeksin its student bodyAlthough sometimes imbedded in the overall admissions objectives describedabove, it is important to have discussions among all key constituents (perhapsincluding enrolled students and alumni as well as faculty and administrators)about the specific qualities the institution seeks in its new students, both indi-vidually and as a group. Does the college wish to enroll more students from dif-ferent parts of the state, region, or nation? Does the institution wish to offeradmission to all students who meet specified academic criteria? Is it importantto bring in students representing different socioeconomic backgrounds, differentracial/ethnic backgrounds? Does a university with a strong science and engineer-ing program want to attract more students in the humanities? Does the institu-tion want to identify students who are likely to use their education to makecontributions to their communities? Does a college want to enroll only studentswho are likely to succeed academically or is it willing to take risks on studentswho show promise and determination? Are there certain qualities faculty areparticularly interested in? (One way to identify those qualities is to ask facultyto name some of the students they value highly and then review those students’

51

original applications to see if there are underlying qualities that should besought.) The challenge is being realistic and delineating both individual andgroup qualities that can be discerned during the review process.

Admissions criteria The next step in making sure an admissions practice is sound is to be sure theadmissions criteria are appropriate within the context of institutional mission andgoals, admissions objectives, and the desired individual and group qualities.Institutions that have state mandates to provide higher education to all studentswho have successfully completed certain secondary school requirements and have areasonable chance of future academic success can quite appropriately employ rela-tively straightforward admissions models that are based on formulas that countcourses and utilize grades, class rank, and/or test results. On the other hand, col-leges and universities that have more specific objectives usually need additional cri-teria to be able to evaluate whether or not applicants are likely to have the desiredqualities the institution seeks. If the institution values creativity, independence, andsuperb communication skills, it needs to be sure that students are given an oppor-tunity to demonstrate that they have these qualities. If the institution is interestedin rewarding students who have persevered in the face of unusual hardships, thereneeds to be a way to learn about relevant extenuating circumstances. If an institu-tion cares about artistic accomplishments, it should be sure to have procedures inplace for inviting and reviewing portfolios, audition tapes, and other such evidence.

As used in this context, the term “admissions criteria” refers to bothapplication components and the underlying factors that are often considered inevaluating an application.

• The list of application components (Appendix B) illustrates the many dif-ferent ways institutions can solicit information from applicants that goes farbeyond basic biographical data. Many colleges ask students to elaborate ontheir activities outside the classroom and to identify what has been mostimportant to them. Colleges also routinely invite students to inform them ifthere are any special circumstances the admissions office should be aware of.Short answer questions and essays and personal statements (Appendix C)are designed to glean information about how the student thinks, whatissues are of concern, what the students’ values are, and how well the stu-dent might fit into campus life.

• The list of factors that may be used in making admissions decisions(Appendix D) provides a comprehensive list of qualities an institutionmight consider. Some are direct measures, but most need to be discernedfrom a careful reading of the entire file, including counselor and teacherrecommendations and information provided by the student on the appli-cation, essays, and supplemental information. While most of these factorsare laudable and to be desired, some institutions might find it appropriateto establish priorities to make the process more manageable.

52

Evaluations and processing modelsThe evaluation process should be a logical extension of the steps identifiedabove. The key here is assuring that those involved in evaluation clearly under-stand the institutional missions and goals, the admissions objectives and whatqualities the institution seeks. Knowing where to look for information andhow to identify important factors is essential. The sections of this report thatdescribe the evaluation process and the models used to select a class illustratethe many different approaches that institutions can follow.

No one approach is inherently better than another. Some have advan-tages that might be appropriate in one situation but not in another. For exam-ple, in recent years, several states or institutions have implemented class rankpolicies—that is, students who have completed specified courses and who rankin the top 2, 10, or 20 percent of their high schools are guaranteed admission.This has the advantage of treating all students in a school in the same mannerand assures broad geographic representation and is an appropriate policy ifthese are important institutional goals. Other institutions may be more inter-ested in individually evaluating how well the student has achieved in relationto the entire applicant pool. And, as noted elsewhere, some institutions allowstudents to be considered through multiple pathways.

Fairness Most people would agree that an element of best practice should be fairness. Afair admissions process should provide all applicants an opportunity to presentrelevant information about themselves, should not permit personal prejudice orfavoritism to influence decisions, should insure that admissions criteria andevaluation guidelines are applied uniformly and that all applicants to a particu-lar program are considered on an equal footing. But, given the many differentinstitutional objectives that an admissions policy needs to satisfy, some studentsmay indeed be given preferential treatment by virtue of some background char-acteristic or special talent. And in highly competitive situations, the fact that somany highly qualified students will not be admitted can only appear unfair tothose students and their families. One of the challenges that the admissionscommunity faces is how to better inform the public about the legitimate needto have flexibility to create a class that supports broad institutional goals.

ValidityA solid admissions process needs to be validated periodically. As noted earlier,this might entail traditional correlation studies to determine whether theadmissions factors used are positively related to students’ academic perfor-mance. But given that most institutions often seek other desired outcomes,other methods of validating admissions criteria should be sought.

53

Future considerationsAdmissions has evolved in significant ways over the past few decades.Institutions have broadened the criteria they consider beyond traditional acade-mic measures. Essays are required by more institutions than just a few yearsago. Academic standards have increased (and students have risen to the chal-lenge and are taking more rigorous programs.) Competition has increased, andthe entire admissions process has shifted earlier in the calendar than it was adecade ago.

But more change is inevitable. The impending Supreme Court deci-sion about affirmative action could have a profound effect on how admissionsis done. The increase in high school graduates projected for the next twodecades, changing demographics, funding shortages in both secondary schoolsand higher education, and technological changes that make it so much easierfor students to apply to many more institutions than ever before are just someof the other factors that will pressure admissions to reinvent itself once again.

54

References and Bibliography

The primary references consulted for this report were viewbooks, catalogues,applications, and other materials published by colleges and universities, andprivate conversations with admissions officers and counselors from around theUnited States and abroad. In addition, the following publications provided use-ful background and may be of interest of anyone interested in further examin-ing the selection process used by undergraduate institutions in the U.S.

Ancrum, R. (1992). The College Application and Admission Process. NewYork, NY: College Entrance Examination Board.

Blackburn, J.A. (1990). Assessment and Evaluation in Admission. New York,NY: College Entrance Examination Board.

Bowen, W.G. & Bok, D. (1998). The Shape of the River: Long-TermConsequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Breland, H, Maxey J., Gernand, R, Cumming, T. & Trapani, C. (2001).Trends in College Admission 2000: A Report of a National Survey ofUndergraduate Admission Policies, Practices, and Procedures.www.airweb.org.

Ciompi, K. (1993). How Colleges Choose Students. New York, NY: CollegeEntrance Examination Board.

Clarke, M. & Shore, A. (2001). The Role of Testing and Diversity in CollegeAdmissions. Boston, MA: Lynch School of Education, Boston College.

College Board (1999). Toward a Taxonomy of the Admissions Decision-Making Process: A Public Document Based on the First and Second CollegeBoard Conferences on Admissions Models. New York, NY: College EntranceExamination Board.

College Board (2002). Best Practices in Admissions Decisions: A report on theThird College Board Conference on Admissions Models. New York, NY:College Entrance Examination Board.

Klitgaard, R. (1985). Choosing Elites. New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc.Law School Admission Council (1999). New Models to Assure Diversity,

Fairness, and Appropriate Test Use in Law School Admissions. McPherson, M.S. & Schapiro, M.O. (1990). Selective Admission and the

Public Interest. New York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board.Mitchell, J.S. (2001). Winning the Heart of the College Admissions Dean.

Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press.Orfield, G. & Miller, E. (Ed.) (1998). Chilling Admissions: The Affirmative

Action Crisis and the Search for Alternatives. Cambridge, MA: HarvardEducation Publishing Group.

Steinberg, J. (2002). The Gatekeepers: Inside the Admissions Process of aPremier College. New York, NY: Viking.

55

Thresher, B.A. (1966). College Admissions and the Public Interest. New York,NY: College Entrance Examination Board.

Willingham, W.W. (1985). Success in College: The Role of Personal Qualitiesand Academic Ability. New York, NY: College Entrance ExaminationBoard.

Willingham, W.W. & Breland, H. (1982). Personal Qualities and CollegeAdmissions. New York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board.

56

Appendix AInstitutional Statements Regarding Admissions Policies andInstitutional Enrollment Goals

The following examples have been excerpted from institutional Web sites, cata-logues, viewbooks, applications, and other communications. Unless otherwisenoted, this information was current during the fall of 2002.

The University seeks to enroll a diverse student body, full oftalented and interesting individuals.

University of Pittsburgh

Rice seeks to create on its campus a rich learning environment inwhich all students will meet individuals whose life experiencesand world views differ significantly from their own.

Rice University (1998)

In selecting a freshman class each year, the Yale AdmissionsCommittee attempts to answer two questions: “Who is likely tomake the most of Yale’s resources?” and “Who will contribute sig-nificantly to the Yale community?”

Yale University

We seek students whose commitment and promise can contributeto the continuous creation and recreation of the academic com-munity that defines a great university. We seek students whoknow that a university enhances everyone in proportion to theircontribution to its intellectual and campus life. We seek studentswho come to not only learn and grow but also to participate indefining and contributing to the university’s quality.

University of Massachusetts (letter from the Chancellor)

As a residential college, Colby is shaped to a great degree by thediversity of its students. Therefore, we seek students who will con-tribute to our community in a variety of ways: those who are eagerto learn, who are willing to explore new fields, and who are enthu-siastic about life in general. In making admission decisions, we seekexcellence—in academics, art, music, theater, work experience,publications, leadership, public service, and athletics. We valueracial, cultural, and socioeconomic diversity throughout the Collegeand seek candidates from all parts of the country and world.

Colby College

57

We seek students whose interests and accomplishments indicatethat they would greatly contribute to and benefit from the edu-cational programs and activities we offer. Our mission and ourlegacy have a profound effect on our students, challenging andinspiring them to become leaders for America and the globalcommunity.

Howard University

The College offers a truly exceptional experience for the men andwomen who call it home, and it eagerly seeks new students whowill make this an even richer and more dynamic place to liveand to learn.

The first criterion for admission is, of course, the potential foracademic achievement. However, we look for much more thangrades. We are looking for leaders, for people with unique talentsand the passion to pursue them, for people willing to stand upand be heard, for people who are creative, funny, interesting,and above all, interested in the world around them.

College of William and Mary

…the Board of Trustees believes that the college’s student bodyshould be drawn from a pool composed of the intellectually capa-ble and academically committed college-bound students in thenation. From that pool, the College should select students for itsentering classes who represent a rich cross-section of backgrounds,talents, experiences and perspectives. This is essential to the cre-ation of a lively and stimulating educational environment thatwill prepare graduates for life in a changing world.

Pomona College

In building our community of scholars, we recognize the intellec-tual and cultural contributions that come from enrolling stu-dents from all walks of life. As a result, we seek students who notonly have demonstrated high levels of academic achievement, butwho have sought out challenges and excelled, and who bring adiversity of talents, skills, viewpoints and experiences to theUniversity.

University of California (Message from the President in application packet)

58

The University’s policy is to offer admission to those applicantswho are most able to benefit from and contribute to theUniversity’s educational resources. In selecting the freshman class,the University does not make its admission decisions solely on thebasis of predicted academic performance. Important academicobjectives are furthered by classes composed of students havingtalents and skills derived from diverse backgrounds.

University of Washington (1998)

59

Appendix Bsummary of application components

Name and Biographical DataName (sometimes Legal Name)Prefer to be called (nickname)Prefix (Mr. Ms.)Suffix (Jr., II, other)Former last name(s) (if any)SexSS NumberMarital statusDo you have children?

Birth DateBirth PlaceYears in U.S.If not born in U.S., when did you arrive?

Race/EthnicityIncludes a separate category for “Ethnicity”Asks all groups to specify country of origin, including the category White, Anglo, or Caucasian (including Arab)

ReligionDo you have any physical or learning requirements which require special accommodation? (If yes, please describe.)

Will you be the first person in your immediate family to attend college?Are you a veteran?Are you the child of a deceased veteran?Are you a state (or university) employee?Are you a twin or triplet? If yes, is a sibling also applying to college?Photograph

CitizenshipCitizenship (U.S., PR, Non-U.S. Resident)Country of ResidenceCountry of CitizenshipIndicate your Visa Type How long in U.S. if not U.S. citizen

61

Language BackgroundNative LanguageLanguage Spoken at HomeLanguage BackgroundOther languages you speak fluentlyWhich languages (other than English) do you speak with difficulty?Comfortably? Fluently?

Geography and Contact InformationState of Legal ResidencyCity or County

e-mail addressPhoneFaxDaytime message #Permanent AddressCurrent Address (if different)Are you a resident of this state? (give dates)

If you have lived outside the U.S., what city and country, and when

Parents and Family BackgroundFather’s nameIs father living?Father’s occupationFather’s employerPosition with firmHighest level of father’s education (check boxes)Father’s education (colleges and degrees)Father’s daytime telephone and e-mailFather’s place of birth

Mother’s nameIs mother living?Mother’s occupationMother’s employerPosition with firmHighest level of mother’s education (check boxes)Mother’s education (colleges and degrees)Mother’s daytime telephone and e-mailMother’s place of birth

62

Previous occupation of parentsIf not with both parents, with whom do you live?Legal guardian’s full name (if different from parents)Marital status of parents (including date of divorce)

Parents and Family BackgroundNames and ages of siblings and, if in college, where and whenList relatives who attended this collegeIs either parent a member of faculty or staff at this college?Is either parent employed by a college that participates in a tuition exchangeprogram?

Income and household size

High School InformationHigh SchoolHigh School addressHigh school (or college) code (ETS, CEEB)Type of HS (catholic/parochial/private/public/home school))Date of GraduationCounselor’s nameCounselor’s phone and fax

Does your school use a Block or Intensive Scheduling System?

Any other High Schools attended (list)College’s attended and courses in progress

Have you ever attended school outside the U.S.? If yes, what grades and what was the language of instruction?

Courses and GradesList all senior year courses on grid, by subject

List all courses taken by subject since 9th grade and provide grades for each term

High school GPA (reported by student)Class rank (reported by student)Student ranks ___ in class of ___ (signed by high school official)

Check off all courses taken in grades 9–12 (by subject)

If you lack any of the units required for admission, please use the space belowto explain why your record lacks those units and describe how you might fulfillthe requirements prior to enrolling.

63

TestingSAT–when taken and scoresACT–when taken and scoresSAT II–when taken and scoresTOEFL (or similar test)–when taken and scoresAP or IB Higher Level Subjects and scores

Test Optional colleges ask students if they want tests considered.Other test results (state, international, competitions)

Activities, Honors, and Work ExperienceDescribe any scholastic distinctions or honors you have won beginning with ninth gradeList, in order of importance, the major extracurricular activities, hobbies or community service activities that have occupied your time in and out of school.Indicate special awards, honors, or prizes received

Extracurricular, Personal, and Volunteer Activities (list on grid)Grades of involvement, time spent, positions held/honors, plan to participate in colleg

List any major honors or distinctions you have received during the past four years. Also list any academic competitions or regional talent searches in which you have participated and describe any honors or awards with which we are unfamiliar.

Extracurricular Activities (circle grade(s) of involvement)Debate or Forensics TeamNational Honor SocietyNational Merit Finalist or Semi-FinalistOrchestra/Band (specify instrument)Other Honor Societies (specify)ScoutingVarsity Athletics in (sport)

Work Experience–List jobsSpecific nature of work, employer, dates, hours/weekTo what use have you put your earnings?

Work or Internship experienceSummer ActivitiesIn the space available, discuss the significance to you of the school or summer activity in which you have been most involved.

64

Describe the intercultural experience that has had the most impact on you.Indicate any special talents or skills that you possess.

Tell us something about yourself that is not readily apparent from your application.

If you found yourself with a free afternoon, how would you choose to spend it?If there were periods other than summers when you were not a full-time student, describe what you did during that time.

College PlansMajorCollege or DivisionPossible career or professional plansPlan to reside (on campus, commute)Plan to apply for financial aidPlan to apply for ROTC scholarship?Do you have the interest and ability to participate in NCAA intercollegiate athletics?Are you interested in participating in intercollegiate debate?

Interest in and knowledge of college and likely contribution to campus environmentHave you recently visited the city near which this college is located?Briefly describe your reasons for applying to our college.How did you first become interested in this college?Have you consulted with any alumni, faculty, coaches or staff concerningadmissions? If yes, with whom and when?Have you visited the campus (When?)Have you had an interview? (When and where?)Which contacts have you had with this institution? (list provided)Which contact has been most helpful?Among the following, who has the greatest desire for you to enroll at thiscollege? (parents, friends, yourself, teacher, counselor, other?)What appeals to you most about this college?Which of the opportunities presented by this college’s location in a major city might be most important to you?As a student at this university, what contributions do you expect to make to the campus community?Please rank order of the factors most likely to influence your college enrollment decision? (from list)If you are related to or well-acquainted with any student or graduate of this college, please give name, relationship, and year of graduation.

65

Names of other colleges to which you are applyingPlease rank order your interest in enrolling at all the institutions to which you are applying, including this college.

OtherHave you ever been convicted of a crime? (If yes, explain)Have you ever been sanctioned by a school resulting in probation orsuspension? (If yes, explain)Do you authorize release of information in your admissions file tomother/father?

SignatureStatements re confidentiality, student dismissal, and truth of applicationStatements re institution’s honor code Statement that applicant wrote the essay

Application Components–additional information requested on separate sheetIf not currently attending school, describe in detail, on a separate sheet, youractivities since last enrolled.

Please describe which of these activities (extracurricular and personal activitiesor work experience) has had the most meaning for you, and why.

On a separate sheet, please provide a brief list of your primary extracurricular,church, community and work activities and interests.

Compose two lists. One list should include all of your awards and achieve-ments; school activities; employment; school, community, and church leader-ship; and school and community service. For each activity, indicate the timecommitment of your involvement. The second list should highlight your mostsignificant activities, Include no more than five activities on this list. Describewhy the activity was important to you.

If your senior year schedule was influenced by factors beyond your control,explain the circumstances on a separate sheet of paper and attach to this form.

Please list the extracurricular activities that have been most important to you inhigh school. We ask for your most important activities because we want to knowwhat you care about and what you might bring to the university community.Because a full resume tends to tell us less about your passions and talents that theshorter list that we request, be sure to include this list even if you also enclose arésumé. Begin with the activity that has been the most significant for you...andlimit your response to roughly half a page. If there is an activity you would liketo highlight, please tell us about it in a few sentences at the bottom of your list.

66

Have you received any significant awards or honors for either academic orextracurricular achievement? If so, list them. Please explain any award that weare not likely to understand..

If any of your hobbies, activities, or special interests has had particular mean-ing for you or requires additional explanation for us to understand it fully, usethe space below to describe it. You may attach a separate sheet if you prefer,but limit your answer to one or two paragraphs.

Are you graduating from secondary school early or without a diploma? If so,please attach a complete explanation

Have you ever discontinued study for any reason other than a brief illness? Ifso, please attach a complete explanation.

Have you ever transferred schools during the academic year? If so, please attacha complete explanation.

If there has been any particularly important event or occurrence in your life, orif there is any unevenness in your record that might need clarification or expla-nation, it is important to share this information with the AdmissionCommittee. Please attach an additional sheet to explain.

Have we missed anything? Should we be aware of some issue, value, or circum-stance pertinent to your application? Let us know. Your comments should notexceed 100 words.

We invite you to submit additional materials, such as recordings of musicalperformance, slides of artwork, photography, creative writing samples, andpoetry, as a means of understanding your personal strengths and better evaluat-ing your candidacy.

Is there a broader context in which we should consider your performance andinvolvements? Any special factors we should consider (e.g. family situation,work, sibling childcare responsibilities or other personal circumstances)? If yes,please provide relevant information on a separate sheet of paper.

Are there any factors or circumstances that may affect your adjustment to col-lege life (academic or extra-curricular)? If yes, please provide relevant informa-tion on a separate sheet of paper.

If you have done any research or independent study outside of school, pleaseinclude an abstract or summary of your work.

67

Appendix CSample Essay (orPersonal Statement) Topics

250 – 500 words on topic of your choice.1. Evaluate a significant experience, achievement, risk you have taken, or

ethical dilemma you have faced and its impact on you.2. Discuss some issue of personal, local, national, or international concern

and its importance to you.3. Indicate a person who has had a significant influence on you, and

describe that influence.4. Describe a character in fiction, an historical figure, or a creative work (as

in art, music, science, etc.) that has had an influence on you and explainthat influence.

5. Topic of your choice.Common Application

Please answer all questions using 500 words or less per question. All responsesmust be submitted with this application.1. What motivates you to seek a college education?2. Why is Berea College a good choice for you?3. What would you like the Admissions Decision Team to know about you

prior to making their decision (that they are unlikely to learn otherwise)?Berea College

Please write an essay on one of the following topics:1. If you could add or remove one item/aspect of contemporary society, what

would it be and why?2. Describe how a work of art, music, dance, theater or literature has inspired you.3. In his essay, Self Reliance, Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote: “Who so would

be a man must be a nonconformist.” React to this quotation and relateyour own experience.

Catholic University

Write an essay of no less than 250 words on one of the following: • Describe a character in fiction, an historical figure, or a creative work (as

in art, music, science, etc.) that has had an influence on you, and explainthat influence.

• We are fortunate to live in a society that is increasingly multicultural anddiverse. Describe a time in your life when you unexpectedly became moreaware of either a difference or an area of common ground that existedbetween you and another person or persons. How did this experienceimpact your understanding of yourself, other people, or of the world?

The College of New Jersey

69

We recognize that all good writers seek feedback, advice, or editing beforesending off an essay. When you have completed your essay, please tell us whoseadvice you sought for help, the advice he/she provided, and whether youincorporated his/her suggestions.

Please answer on a separate sheet of paper. Remember, this is your opportunityto speak to us in your own voice, so be yourself. Choose one of the followingquestions and indicate which question you’ve chosen. We ask that you limityour essay to no more than 2–3 pages and use double spacing if the essay istyped or computer printed. Be sure to include your name and address on allthe attached sheets.a. Have you witnessed a person who is close to you doing something you

considered seriously wrong? Describe the circumstances, your thoughts, andhow you chose to respond. If you discussed it with the person, was his/herjustification valid? In retrospect, what if anything would you have donedifferently and why?

b. What has been your most profound or surprising intellectual experience?c. Write on any topic of importance to you. If you have written a personal

essay for another purpose—even an essay for another college—that youbelieve represents you, your writing, and your thinking particularly well,feel free to submit it.

Duke University

If you had only $10 (or 11EUR, or R$25, or Rs 490, etc.) to plan a day’sadventure, where would you go, what would you do, and whom would youtake with you?

Additional question (only for applicants considering engineering programs).

Please write an essay in which you respond to the following questions.

On what kind of projects do you enjoy working? What kind of problems doyou enjoy solving? What area of engineering interests you most?

Johns Hopkins University

Please respond to the following, using whatever space and medium you like.

Personal Statements

Please respond to one of the four topics below. Note which topic you areaddressing at the beginning of your essay. Your essay must be typed (from 400to 500 words) and submitted on separate sheets of paper. Type your nameand social security number on each sheet, and staple all sheets to this page.

70

Essay Topics• Who is the voice of your generation, and what message does he or she

express? Do you agree with this message, and why?• One theory holds that great leaders are produced by the particulars of their

time. In your opinion, are great leaders the product of circumstance or theresult of individual qualities? Pick a leader and support your position.

• There is a significant difference between a stupid mistake and a cleverone. Give an example of a “clever” mistake you have made and explainhow it benefited you or others.

• When asked by Pope Boniface VIII to prove his skill as an artist, Giotto(1267-1337) drew a perfect circle freehand. What seemingly simpleaction would demonstrate your ability or skill, and how would itrepresent you?

Short Statements

Please respond to the following questions in the space provided.• Create an acronym that represents your life. What is it, and what does it

stand for?• Imagine you are the offspring of any two famous people. Who are your

parents, and what qualities have they passed on to you?• Driving into downtown Chicago, there is a building visible from the

Kennedy Expressway adorned with a mural of well known Chicagopersonalities. If you could paint anything (other than your own likeness)on the building, what would it be, and why?

• In the spirit of Northwestern’s tradition of collaborative learning, pleaseprovide us with an original essay topic or short statement you’d like to seeon next year’s application. (Most of this year’s essays and short statementswere suggested by students.)

Northwestern University

Because the Admissions Committee evaluates each applicant as an individual,the essays you submit are an integral part of your application. The Committeeis interested both in your ideas and in how you express them. We read essayswith regard to content and style. Clearly type or print your responses on sepa-rate sheets of paper and place them inside this form. Include your name andsocial security number on all sheets. If you print, please use ink.

Please concisely answer one of the following prompts, limiting your responseto no more than a page.a. Imagine you have been given the means and the opportunity, beyond what

is available to you now, to develop a talent or new area of interest. Whatdo you choose and why?

b. Although it may appear to the contrary, we do know that people have a

71

life beyond what they do to get into college. Tell us about a fun experienceyou’ve had outside of your formal classroom and extracurricular activities.You might choose to write about time spent with friends, family, or evenby yourself.

Choose one of the following options. Lease limit your response to one or two pages.a. At Pomona, we see the ability to question and to think critically as

essential to the learning experience. Tell us about something you oncethought you knew with certainty but have since reevaluated.

b. Pomona College’s approach to education includes, among other things, astrong emphasis on collaboration. How has collaboration played a role inyour learning experience thus far, and how do you see it affecting yourcollege experience.

c. Pick a topic of your own choosing that will give you the opportunity toexpress to us a sense of how you think, what issues and ideas are mostimportant to you, and a sense of your personal philosophy, traits, goals, etc.

Pomona College

Freshman applicants may choose from two main topics. No matter which topicyou choose your personal statement should reflect your own ideas and be writtenby you alone. Write your essay in a natural style, so that it conveys who you are.Present your information and ideas in a focused, thoughtful, and meaningfulmanner. Support your ideas with specific examples. A personal statement that issimply a list of qualities or accomplishments is not usually persuasive.

Reflecting on your family’s experiences and personal circumstances, whatwould you like to tell us that is not already revealed or explained sufficientlyin your application?

What you do in the classroom defines only a part of who you are. How do youspend your time when you are not in class or studying? Focus on one activity,two at the most, and discuss what you have gained from your involvement.

University of California

Choose one of the four topics below and write a concise essay (300–500words) on a separate attachment labeled “UGA Essay.” Please be sure toinclude your full name (as listed on your application) and social securitynumber on each page of the attachment.1. Think about a recent experience in which you displayed initiative or

demonstrated leadership ability. What did you learn about yourself—yourstrengths, weaknesses and aspirations—and how do you expect to usewhat you learned in the future?

2. Think back to what you were like as a student and as a person in yourfirst year of high school. Consider yourself now. Tell us how you havechanged, and why.

72

3. In your opinion, what elements of a person’s character define integrity? Providea personal experience in which you believe you have demonstrated integrity.

4. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. believed that it was critical for one person tohave discovered something in life for which it was worth dying. If youcould choose one political, environmental, spiritual, or social issue to fightfor, what would it be and why?

University of Georgia

On separate sheets of paper, write a response to ONE of the following topics. Thisstatement should help us get to know you by going beyond the numbers and factsincluded in other sections of your application. Some past applicants have present-ed their special talents, unique interests, socioeconomic or cultural backgrounds(including languages other than English spoken at home, and dozens of other per-sonal qualities. All we ask of you is an honest reflection and careful writing.• Please limit your personal statement to approximately 500 words.• Type statement (double spaced) or print it neatly.• At the top of each page, please include:• “Section 7, Personal Statement,” your name, and your social security

number.• Please note the topic you have selected.1. In his autobiography Long Walk to Freedom, Nelson Mandela reflects

upon his life and commitment to the antiapartheid movement. He writes:“I learned that courage was not the absence of fear, but the triumph overit.” Give a personal example of how courage has played a role in your life.

2. English poet W.H. Auden wrote, “Those who will not perish in the act;those who will not act perish for that reason.” At Notre Dame, we valueequally intellectual inquiry and social responsibility. Describe a personalexperience in which your ideas motivated your actions, or an experiencein which your actions changed your ideas.

3. Compose a Personal Statement with content of your own choosing. Indoing so, feel free to introduce yourself to us in any way you feelappropriate. Whether your essay is autobiographical or imaginative, itshould reflect who you are in both form and content.

University of Notre Dame

Describe the courses of study and the unique characteristics of the Universityof Pennsylvania that most interest you. Why do these interests make you agood match for Penn?

Your intellectual abilities, your sense of imagination and your creativity areimportant to us. With this in mind, please respond to one of the followingthree requests. Your essay should not exceed one page.1. You have just completed your 300-page autobiography. Please submit page

217.

73

2. First experiences can be defining. Cite a first experience that you have hadand explain its impact on you.

3. Recall an occasion when you took a risk that you now know was the rightthing to do.

The University of Pennsylvania

Answer one of the following questions. Limit your response to half a page, orapproximately 250 words.• What is your favorite word, and why?• Look out any window in your home. What would you change about what

you see?• You’ve likely heard that college will be the best four years of your life. If

only you could get there! Describe how the process of “getting there” hasaffected you. What have you learned about yourself or others—peers,parents, admissions professionals—during the college search process?

• What form of discrimination most concerns you?• Technophobe or technophile?

Please write on a topic of your choice. If an essay question for another collegepiqued your interest, feel free to submit your response to that question. Pleaselimit your submission to one page, or approximately 500 words.

University of Virginia

Imagine that you have the opportunity to meet with a great secular figurefrom the past (for example, a scholar, inventor, statesman, artist, writer,explorer, or military genius). Describe your meeting and the issues you woulddiscuss with that person.

University of Washington

Honors Essay

The University would like you to discuss those aspects of your life that maynot be apparent from information provided on your application or highschool transcript. Although no topic is prescribed, you may choose to discuss:• your academic interests and educational goals• aspects of your background or experience that would enrich the racial,

ethnic, cultural, or educational diversity of the University community;• significant life experiences that may have deleteriously affected your

educational development, such as growing up in an economically oreducationally disadvantaged environment or coping with personal orfamily hardships;

• significant leadership or extracurricular activities;• significant experiences in community service or employment;• special talents in the arts.

University of Washington

74

Appendix DFactors that May Be Used in Making Admissions DecisionsBased on Internal Evaluation Guidelines

Academic Achievement, Quality, and Potential

Direct measuresAP, IB and honors coursesClass RankCollege courses while in high schoolCore (required) curriculumCourses beyond core curriculumGrades (GPA)Internships in area of academic interestParticipation in enrichment or outreach programsPattern of grade improvement during high schoolQuality of curriculumSolid college-prep curriculum (4 years in each subject)Strength of Senior YearTest Scores (SAT I and II, ACT, AP, etc.)

Caliber of High SchoolAverage SAT (ACT) scoresCompetitive grading system in high schoolCompetitiveness of classPercentage attending 4-year collegesStrength of curriculum (including availability of AP, honors)

Evaluative measuresAcademic recognition and awardsArtistic talentDepth in one or more academic areas related to student interestsEvidence of academic passionGrasp of world events Independent academic researchIntellectual curiositySophisticated vocabulary and command of the English languageWriting quality

75

Nonacademic Characteristics and Attributes

GeographicAcademically disadvantaged school (such as inner city or rural)Economically disadvantaged regionFrom far awayFrom local communityFrom school with few or no previous applicantsState resident

Personal Background Alumni connectionCultural diversityFaculty/staff connectionFirst generation to go to college from familyLow-economic family backgroundMilitary veteranPeace Corps, America Corps, etc.Personal disadvantageReturning StudentSexUnderrepresented minority

Extracurricular activities, service, and leadershipAwards and honors (athletic, artistic, musical, civic)Community serviceImpact student’s involvement had on school and communityLeadershipQuality and depth of involvementWork experience

Personal attributesArtistic talentCharacterCivic and cultural awarenessCommitmentCommitment to high idealsConcern for othersConcern for the communityConsistent follow-throughCreativityDetermination/Grit

76

Diverse perspectiveEffortEnthusiasm for learningEvidence of persistenceGets along well with othersHighly motivatedInitiativeInsightIntellectual independenceLeadership potentialMaturityMotivationOriginalityPersonal presencePersonal promiseProductive use of timeReliableResponsibilityTeam playerTenacityTolerance

Extenuating circumstancesFamily problemsFrequent moves/many different schoolsHealth challengesIs English first language?Language spoken at homeOvercoming personal adversityResponsibility for raising a familySuccess in face of unusual hardships or demands on time

OtherDemonstrated interest in collegeEffective oral communicationInterview impressionIs student good match for institution?Is student good match for intended major?Strong personal statement

77

Appendix EWhat Colleges tell students about what they are looking for

Academic FactorsAchievements, honors, and awardsAcademic achievementAcademic awardsAcademic promiseAcademic work ethicAP, IB, or honors courses (or college courses)Class RankCompletion of a substantial number of academic courses beyond the

required minimumCompletion of core subject requirementsCurricular patterns and grade trendsDifficulty of courses takenEffective class discussionEligibility Index (grades and scores0Evaluations from teachers and counselorsEvidence of unusually competitive grading system in high schoolGradesGraduation from high schoolIntellectual abilityLetters of referencePattern of GPA improvement during high schoolStrength of high school curriculum (including senior year)Test scoresTypes and levels of courses takenWritten expression of ideasAcademic commitmentRigorous senior year curriculumQuality of curriculumAcademic competition within high schoolConsistent academic growth and achievementParticipation in activities which develop academic and intellectual abilities

Nonacademic FactorsAccomplishmentsAdaptabilityAlumni connectionsAppreciation for individual differences

79

Artistic talentAspirationsAthletic talentCapacity for involvementCharacterCommitmentCommitment to serviceCommunication skillsCommunity involvementConcern for othersCourage to take intellectual risksCreative, original thoughtCreativityCultural/ethnic awarenessCuriosityDepth of extracurricular experiencesDisciplined work habitsEducational, economic, and cultural diversityEmotional stabilityEnergyEnthusiasmEnthusiasm for learningEssaysExtenuating circumstancesFearlessnessGeographic diversityGood characterGood match between applicant and collegeImaginationIndependenceIndependent thinkingInitiativeIntegrityIntellectual curiosityIntellectual pursuitsIntelligenceInterest in people and ideasInterested in the collegeInterests and qualities that will contribute to the vitality of the campus com-

munityKnowledge of selfLeadershipLeadership potential

80

Likely to take advantage of what college offersMaturityMotivationOriginalityOvercoming life challenges Passion about interest and extracurricular involvementsPersonal challengesPersonal characterPersonal meritPersonal statementsPersonal strengthsPotential for growth Potential for successPromisePromise for personal growth and developmentQualities that distinguish you from other applicantsQuality of thoughtReliabilityRespect different views, opinions, and backgroundsRespectful of others’ beliefsSchool and community activitiesSelf-confidenceSelf-expressionSense of fairness and justiceSense of humorSerious education ambitionsSeriousness of purposeService to the communitySpecial accomplishmentsSpecial circumstancesSpecial talentsState residentsStatement of purposeSuccessfully completes activitiesWell-rounded both in and out of the classroomWillingness of explore, question, and take intellectual risksWillingness to contribute to school and communityWillingness to take on academic challengesWork experience

81

Appendix FTables from Trends in college admission 2000

83

85

TA

BL

E 4

.8A

vera

ge I

mpo

rtan

ce o

f Var

ious

Fac

tors

in

Adm

issi

ons

Dec

isio

ns a

t Fo

ur-Y

ear

Inst

itut

ions

, 197

9, 1

985,

199

2, a

nd 2

000

Ave

rage

Im

port

ance

of

Fact

ora

Four

-yea

r P

ublic

Four

-yea

r P

riva

te

Fact

or19

7919

8519

9220

00d

1979

1985

1992

2000

d

Hig

h sc

hool

GPA

or

rank

4.

0 3.

9 4.

0 4.

0 4.

2 4.

0 4.

0 3.

9A

dmis

sion

s te

st s

core

s 3.

5 3.

53.

6 3.

7 3.

4 3.

43.

4 3.

6Pa

tter

n of

HS

Cou

rsew

ork

2.5

2.9

3.2

3.0

3.1

3.3

3.3

3.2

Col

lege

-lev

el w

ork

in H

Sb2.

72.

8 2.

93.

0A

P C

ours

e E

nrol

lmen

t c

2.2

(3.0

) 2.

5 (3

.1)

AP

Cou

rse

Gra

desc

2.2

(3.0

) 2.

5 (3

.1)

Lett

ers

of r

ecom

men

dati

on

2.1

1.9

1.9

2.0

2.9

3.0

3.0

3.0

Ess

ays

1.6

1.6

1.7

2.0

2.3

2.6

2.6

2.9

AP

Exa

ms

Gra

desc

1.8

(2.7

) 2.

1 (2

.8)

Ach

ieve

men

t te

st s

core

s 1.

7 1.

6 1.

6 1.

7 (2

.7)

2.4

2.1

1.9

2.1

(2.8

)Po

rtfo

lios,

aud

itio

ns, e

tc.

1.8

1.9

1.7

1.7

2.1

2.1

1.9

2.1

SAT

IIc

1.6

(2.9

) 1.

8 (2

.8)

Inte

rvie

ws

2.0

1.7

1.7

1.6

2.9

2.8

2.7

2.7

Dec

lara

tion

of

maj

or

1.9

1.8

1.8

1.6

1.9

1.8

1.7

1.7

Stat

e of

res

iden

ce

1.6

1.8

1.8

1.5

1.3

1.2

1.2

1.2

Min

orit

y gr

oup

mem

bers

hipb

2.2

1.4

1.8

1.5

Hea

lth s

tate

men

t 1.

4 1.

4 1.

4 1.

3 1.

7 1.

5 1.

4 1.

3C

ount

ry o

f re

side

ncea

1.

6 1.

3 1.

4 1.

4D

isab

ility

gro

up m

embe

rshi

pb1.

4 1.

2 1.

2 1.

2A

gec

1.2

1.1

Prop

orti

on o

f st

uden

ts f

rom

eac

h H

Sc1.

1 1.

1G

ende

rb 1.

2 1.

1 1.

4 1.

3Fu

ll/pa

rt-t

ime

stat

usb

1.2

1.1

1.4

1.3

Fina

ncia

l nee

d 1.

2 1.

2 1.

2 1.

1 1.

4 1.

3 1.

3 1.

3N

umbe

r of

Ins

titu

tion

s 33

3 41

2 36

6 30

5 64

8 82

3 78

4 65

7N

otes

:200

0 su

mm

ary

data

for

thi

s ta

ble

wer

e ob

tain

ed f

rom

res

pons

es t

o qu

esti

ons

6 an

d 7

of t

he f

our-

year

que

stio

nnai

re.

aA

vera

ge im

port

ance

was

com

pute

d as

a m

ean

whe

re:

bN

ot s

urve

yed

in 1

979

and

1985

.cSu

rvey

ed o

nly

in 2

000.

d Fi

gure

s in

par

enth

eses

exc

lude

“no

t co

nsid

ered

” in

the

ave

rage

impo

rtan

ce c

ompu

tati

on.

Sour

ce:T

rend

s in

Col

lege

Adm

issi

on 2

000:

A R

epor

t of

a N

atio

nal S

urve

y of

Und

ergr

adua

te A

dmis

sion

Pol

icie

s, P

ract

ices

, and

Pro

cedu

res

(Bre

land

, Max

ey, G

erna

nd, C

umm

ing

& T

rapa

ni, 2

001)

ww

w.a

irw

eb.o

rg.

1 =

Not

con

side

red

2 =

A m

inor

fac

tor

3 =

A m

oder

atel

y im

port

ant

fact

or (

in 1

979,

“on

e of

sev

eral

fac

tors

”)4

= A

ver

y im

port

ant

fact

or5

= T

he s

ingl

e m

ost

impo

rtan

t fa

ctor

86

TA

BL

E 4

.9Im

port

ance

of V

ario

us F

acto

rs i

n A

dmis

sion

s D

ecis

ions

at

Four

-Yea

r P

ublic

Ins

titu

tion

s, b

y In

stit

utio

nal S

elec

tivi

ty, 1

985,

199

2, a

nd 2

000

Ave

rage

Im

port

ance

of

Fact

ora

50%

or

less

80%

–95%

50%

–80%

Mor

e th

en 9

5%

Fact

or19

8519

9220

0019

8519

9220

0019

8519

9220

0019

8519

9220

00

Hig

h Sc

hool

GPA

or

rank

4.1

4.2

4.0

3.9

4.0

4.0

4.1

4.2

4.1

2.9

3.2

3.1

Adm

issi

ons

test

sco

res

3.9

3.8

3.5

3.5

3.7

3.6

3.8

3.7

3.7

2.9

3.2

3.1

Patt

ern

of H

S co

urse

wor

k3.

53.

63.

32.

73.

12.

93.

33.

43.

21.

92.

22.

1

Lett

ers

of r

ecom

men

dati

on

2.5

2.3

2.2

1.7

2.0

2.0

2.1

2.0

2.1

1.4

1.4

1.4

Ess

ays

2.4

2.5

2.4

1.4

1.6

1.9

1.8

1.8

2.1

1.2

1.2

1.3

Ach

ieve

men

t te

st s

core

s1.

91.

71.

91.

61.

51.

71.

71.

61.

71.

51.

51.

6

Port

folio

s, a

udit

ions

, etc

.2.

92.

42.

21.

71.

51.

52.

11.

81.

71.

41.

11.

3

Inte

rvie

ws

2.1

1.7

1.9

1.6

1.7

1.6

1.9

1.7

1.6

1.4

1.3

1.3

Dec

lara

tion

of

maj

or2.

11.

91.

51.

81.

71.

61.

91.

81.

71.

41.

51.

3

Stat

e of

res

iden

ce2.

12.

31.

61.

81.

71.

41.

91.

81.

61.

71.

81.

1

Hea

lth s

tate

men

t 1.

61.

41.

41.

31.

31.

21.

41.

41.

11.

31.

51.

6

Fina

ncia

l nee

d 1.

31.

21.

01.

11.

21.

11.

21.

11.

11.

21.

21.

1

Num

ber

of I

nsti

tuti

ons

3130

22

124

9195

16

517

013

767

3427

Not

e:20

00 s

umm

ary

data

for

the

impo

rtan

ce o

f ad

mis

sion

s fa

ctor

s w

ere

obta

ined

fro

m r

espo

nses

to

ques

tion

6 o

f th

e fo

ur-y

ear

ques

tion

nair

e.a A

vera

ge r

atin

gs w

ere

com

pute

d as

mea

ns w

here

:

Sour

ce:T

rend

s in

Col

lege

Adm

issi

on 2

000:

A R

epor

t of

a N

atio

nal S

urve

y of

Und

ergr

adua

te A

dmis

sion

Pol

icie

s, P

ract

ices

, and

Pro

cedu

res

(Bre

land

, Max

ey, G

erna

nd, C

umm

ing

& T

rapa

ni, 2

001)

ww

w.a

irw

eb.o

rg.

1 =

Not

con

side

red

2 =

A m

inor

fac

tor

3 =

A m

oder

atel

y im

port

ant

fact

or4

= A

ver

y im

port

ant

fact

or5

= T

he s

ingl

e m

ost

impo

rtan

t fa

ctor

87

TA

BL

E 4

.10

Impo

rtan

ce o

f Var

ious

Fac

tors

in

Adm

issi

ons

Dec

isio

ns a

t Fo

ur-Y

ear

Pri

vate

Ins

titu

tion

s, b

y In

stit

utio

nal S

elec

tivi

ty, 1

985,

199

2, a

nd

2000

Ave

rage

Im

port

ance

of

Fact

ora

50%

or

less

80%

–95%

50%

–80%

Mor

e th

en 9

5%

Fact

or19

8519

9220

0019

8519

9220

0019

8519

9220

0019

8519

9220

00

Hig

h Sc

hool

GPA

or

rank

4.

24.

24.

14.

04.

23.

94.

24.

24.

13.

12.

93.

5

Adm

issi

ons

test

sco

res

3.6

3.6

3.5

3.4

3.6

3.6

3.5

3.5

3.6

2.8

2.6

3.0

Patt

ern

of H

S co

urse

wor

k 3.

63.

63.

73.

33.

43.

23.

53.

53.

42.

42.

22.

2

Lett

ers

of r

ecom

men

dati

on

3.2

3.2

3.5

3.0

3.1

2.9

3.0

3.1

3.1

2.7

2.5

2.6

Ess

ays

3.1

2.8

3.3

2.5

2.6

2.8

2.7

2.9

3.0

2.0

2.0

2.5

Ach

ieve

men

t te

st s

core

s 2.

82.

52.

92.

01.

92.

02.

01.

92.

01.

81.

72.

1

Port

folio

s, a

udit

ions

, etc

. 2.

72.

32.

41.

91.

92.

02.

22.

02.

11.

61.

51.

8

Inte

rvie

ws

2.6

2.3

2.7

2.9

2.8

2.6

2.8

2.8

2.7

2.5

2.4

2.5

Dec

lara

tion

of

maj

or

1.9

1.8

2.1

1.6

1.7

1.5

1.8

1.8

1.7

1.7

1.8

1.6

Stat

e of

res

iden

ce

1.5

1.4

1.5

1.1

1.2

1.1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.0

1.1

1.1

Hea

lth s

tate

men

t 1.

31.

31.

21.

61.

41.

31.

41.

41.

31.

81.

71.

6

Fina

ncia

l nee

d 1.

31.

41.

41.

41.

31.

11.

21.

21.

31.

81.

61.

4

Not

e:20

00 s

umm

ary

data

for

the

impo

rtan

ce o

f ad

mis

sion

s fa

ctor

s w

ere

obta

ined

fro

m r

espo

nses

to

ques

tion

6 o

f th

e fo

ur-y

ear

ques

tion

nair

e.a A

vera

ge r

atin

gs w

ere

com

pute

d as

mea

ns w

here

:So

urce

:Tre

nds

in C

olle

ge A

dmis

sion

200

0: A

Rep

ort

of a

Nat

iona

l Sur

vey

of U

nder

grad

uate

Adm

issi

on P

olic

ies,

Pra

ctic

es, a

nd P

roce

dure

s (B

rela

nd, M

axey

, Ger

nand

, Cum

min

g &

Tra

pani

, 200

1) w

ww

.air

web

.org

.

1 =

Not

con

side

red

2 =

A m

inor

fac

tor

3 =

A m

oder

atel

y im

port

ant

fact

or4

= A

ver

y im

port

ant

fact

or5

= T

he s

ingl

e m

ost

impo

rtan

t fa

ctor

88

TA

BL

E 4

.12

Impo

rtan

ce o

f Pe

rson

al Q

ualit

ies

in A

dmis

sion

s D

ecis

ions

by

Perc

enta

ge 1

979,

198

5, 1

992,

and

200

0

Four

-yea

r P

ublic

Four

-yea

r P

riva

te

Pers

onal

Qua

lity

1979

1985

1992

2000

1979

1985

1992

2000

Lead

ersh

ip a

bilit

y43

4945

5277

7976

78E

xtra

curr

icul

ar a

ctiv

itie

sa—

4945

50—

7673

75C

omm

unit

y ac

tivi

ties

b28

3634

4372

7574

77M

otiv

atio

n or

init

iati

ve57

5148

57

9088

8684

Wor

k ex

peri

ence

4643

3441

6459

5156

Com

pati

bilit

y39

3842

4076

8384

79N

umbe

r of

Ins

titu

tion

s33

341

336

630

564

882

778

365

7

Not

es: 2

000

sum

mar

y da

ta f

or t

his

tabl

e w

ere

obta

ined

fro

m r

espo

nses

to

ques

tion

12

of t

he f

our-

year

n qu

esti

onna

ire.

Per

cent

ages

giv

en a

re t

he s

um o

f re

spon

ses

to “

Som

etim

es

Impo

rtan

t” a

nd “

Oft

en I

mpo

rtan

t.”a N

ot s

urve

yed

in 1

979.

b In

1992

, Com

mun

ity

or c

hurc

h in

volv

emen

t.”

Sour

ce: T

rend

s in

Col

lege

Adm

issi

on 2

000:

A R

epor

t of

a N

atio

nal S

urve

y of

Und

ergr

adua

te A

dmis

sion

Pol

icie

s, P

ract

ices

, and

Pro

cedu

res

(Bre

land

, Max

ey, G

erna

nd, C

umm

ing,

&

Trap

ani,

2001

) w

ww

.air

web

.org